|
Post by zendancer on Jun 18, 2015 6:37:50 GMT -5
That's pretty much the teaching of ALL nonduality teachers, including Krishnamurti. The "curiosity" aspect applies to people who want to understand what's going on. After understanding is attained, then the teaching is best summarized as, "Let it all go, and just be what you are." Curiosity generally implies some sort of seeking. Perhaps a better word would be "interest" or "attentiveness," as in "Let it all go, put interest upon what is 'now,' and remain attentive." And that's the beginning of separation and conflict.. the 'better word', better label, better Belief System.. word-lawyering.. the difference you cite between curiosity and interest is a conceptual structure seeking an opportunity state that experiencer's 'better' understandings.. dissecting each word for imagined implications reveals way too much deliberately 'looking' for something, rather than 'seeing' what's actually there.. Genuine curiosity arises naturally, spontaneously.. what's around the next bend, over that hill, or across that sea?.. seeking might happen as a result of curiosity, it might happen as a result of interest, too.. 'seeking and seekers' aren't issues for those not attached to models where each word is scrutinized for its relationship with such models.. discussions that could reveal common threads of understanding are generally hijacked by the advocates of nonduality insisting that the 'better' way to say something will conform with their model.. It's odd seeing an imagined/implied difference between curiosity and interest exploited for an ideological attachment.. TMT. Why not follow your own advice, and Keep A Still Mind? (KASM)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 18, 2015 6:59:01 GMT -5
And that's the beginning of separation and conflict.. the 'better word', better label, better Belief System.. word-lawyering.. the difference you cite between curiosity and interest is a conceptual structure seeking an opportunity state that experiencer's 'better' understandings.. dissecting each word for imagined implications reveals way too much deliberately 'looking' for something, rather than 'seeing' what's actually there.. Genuine curiosity arises naturally, spontaneously.. what's around the next bend, over that hill, or across that sea?.. seeking might happen as a result of curiosity, it might happen as a result of interest, too.. 'seeking and seekers' aren't issues for those not attached to models where each word is scrutinized for its relationship with such models.. discussions that could reveal common threads of understanding are generally hijacked by the advocates of nonduality insisting that the 'better' way to say something will conform with their model.. It's odd seeing an imagined/implied difference between curiosity and interest exploited for an ideological attachment.. TMT. Why not follow your own advice, and Keep A Still Mind? (KASM) That has the characteristics of a classic dodge the issue tactic..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 18, 2015 8:34:46 GMT -5
TMT. Why not follow your own advice, and Keep A Still Mind? (KASM) That has the characteristics of a classic dodge the issue tactic.. KASM
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 18, 2015 13:23:57 GMT -5
That's pretty much the teaching of ALL nonduality teachers, including Krishnamurti. The "curiosity" aspect applies to people who want to understand what's going on. After understanding is attained, then the teaching is best summarized as, "Let it all go, and just be what you are." Curiosity generally implies some sort of seeking. Perhaps a better word would be "interest" or "attentiveness," as in "Let it all go, put interest upon what is 'now,' and remain attentive." And that's the beginning of separation and conflict.. the 'better word', better label, better Belief System.. word-lawyering.. the difference you cite between curiosity and interest is a conceptual structure seeking an opportunity state that experiencer's 'better' understandings.. dissecting each word for imagined implications reveals way too much deliberately 'looking' for something, rather than 'seeing' what's actually there.. Genuine curiosity arises naturally, spontaneously.. what's around the next bend, over that hill, or across that sea?.. seeking might happen as a result of curiosity, it might happen as a result of interest, too.. 'seeking and seekers' aren't issues for those not attached to models where each word is scrutinized for its relationship with such models.. discussions that could reveal common threads of understanding are generally hijacked by the advocates of nonduality insisting that the 'better' way to say something will conform with their model.. It's odd seeing an imagined/implied difference between curiosity and interest exploited for an ideological attachment.. I like the word "curiosity", as it has a more playful vibe than "interest" or "attentiveness", which to me invokes something more "military". In these ways I believe we're all different, the way we respond to words and their exact meaning to us. So yeah, speaking of "better" ways to communicate non duality may be misleading as we're never sure how a person responds to the words and sentences. At the same time it's understandable that one wants to be as "clear" as possible. It's just not clear what clarity might be for different people.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 18, 2015 19:30:30 GMT -5
And that's the beginning of separation and conflict.. the 'better word', better label, better Belief System.. word-lawyering.. the difference you cite between curiosity and interest is a conceptual structure seeking an opportunity state that experiencer's 'better' understandings.. dissecting each word for imagined implications reveals way too much deliberately 'looking' for something, rather than 'seeing' what's actually there.. Genuine curiosity arises naturally, spontaneously.. what's around the next bend, over that hill, or across that sea?.. seeking might happen as a result of curiosity, it might happen as a result of interest, too.. 'seeking and seekers' aren't issues for those not attached to models where each word is scrutinized for its relationship with such models.. discussions that could reveal common threads of understanding are generally hijacked by the advocates of nonduality insisting that the 'better' way to say something will conform with their model.. It's odd seeing an imagined/implied difference between curiosity and interest exploited for an ideological attachment.. I like the word "curiosity", as it has a more playful vibe than "interest" or "attentiveness", which to me invokes something more "military". In these ways I believe we're all different, the way we respond to words and their exact meaning to us. So yeah, speaking of "better" ways to communicate non duality may be misleading as we're never sure how a person responds to the words and sentences. At the same time it's understandable that one wants to be as "clear" as possible. It's just not clear what clarity might be for different people. That's the truth. (TTT heh heh)
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 19, 2015 16:27:30 GMT -5
Hi Jay17 Which aspects of this review makes it your favorite? Is it because you agree with everything he is saying? Or some of it? Is it because the writer says he's "a spiritual teacher, and a long-time expert in multiple spiritual Dharmas – Pali, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism; Hindu Raja Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, and Kashmir Shaivism; Adi Da’s Daism, J. Krishnamurti’s teachings, and Christian Hermeticism"? Just wondering. The reviewer, Gardner, uses basic common sense reasoning\analysis to point out the errors in Backlund's conclusions. The reviewer judges Backlund as a Sophist. Sophist: 1. - One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation. - A person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound. 2. - Any of a group of professional fifth-century bc Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic. - Any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of philosophy, rhetoric, etc., noted esp. for their ingenuity and speciousness in argumentation. - From Latin sophista, from Greek sophistēs a wise man, from sophizesthai to act craftily 3. A person who reasons adroitly and speciously. Speciously. - Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument. - Deceptively appealing. ---------------------------------------- In my own words, Backlund unconsciously tries to spellbind others with tricksy words\sentence structure, yet all it takes is a little bit of common sense reasoning and examine below the surface to see the errors in his claims. Of course, people like Backlund, themselves unaware they are spellbound in Advaita doctrine, will not see it this way. They will reason\perceive they are totally free from illusion\they are fully enlightened\they have achieved the ultimate pure state of consciousness\or any other phrase they may wish to use to describe their current state of being. Meanwhile, from an external observation point, many will simply see yet another person encased in beliefs due to valuing them as absolute truth...no different from any other person who adheres to one of the many religions or spiritual or scientific philosophies that exist. And my attitude is if someone wants to believe a concept of existence is absolute truth and proclaim it's not a belief but is in fact existence itself, i am genuinely happy for them that they have found something that answers all their questions and alleviates the distress they feel when faced with uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 21, 2015 14:08:28 GMT -5
Speciously. - Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument. - Deceptively appealing. This is one of the key words for me. There is the term, 'mindless belief'. It denotes that the believer has not used their mind to analyze something, that they accept it's true without thoughtful consideration. I do not agree with this hypothesis. I think all decisions humans make requires intellectual analysis of the experience. What i think the issues are is how much a person thinks about something\how deeply they examine, and what elements there are that influences their thinking process that determines their decisions\conclusions. One such influence is desire, the emotional sensations that arise when experiencing something that signifies self wants to obtain the thing being examined\experienced. What i have noticed within myself and talking with others is, when the desire to obtain is strong, objective analysis reduces due to bias towards that which one desires to obtain. The desire creates\fuels the bias. Sometimes people are self aware of this phenomena, sometimes not. The end result is people, in specific situations, will think\analyze to accept, instead of thinking\analyzing to verify a hypothesis. They think to accept the hypothesis in order to fulfill their desire. In the spiritual community, i think the biggest desire is to obtain truth about oneself and it's relationship to\within existence, and the no.1 way to do this is through another hypothesis called Enlightenment. Apparently it's the ultimate state of being a human can achieve, and it's no stretch of my mind to imagine people having really strong desires for it.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 21, 2015 17:06:21 GMT -5
Speciously. - Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument. - Deceptively appealing. This is one of the key words for me. There is the term, 'mindless belief'. It denotes that the believer has not used their mind to analyze something, that they accept it's true without thoughtful consideration. I do not agree with this hypothesis. I think all decisions humans make requires intellectual analysis of the experience. What i think the issues are is how much a person thinks about something\how deeply they examine, and what elements there are that influences their thinking process that determines their decisions\conclusions. One such influence is desire, the emotional sensations that arise when experiencing something that signifies self wants to obtain the thing being examined\experienced. What i have noticed within myself and talking with others is, when the desire to obtain is strong, objective analysis reduces due to bias towards that which one desires to obtain. The desire creates\fuels the bias. Sometimes people are self aware of this phenomena, sometimes not. The end result is people, in specific situations, will think\analyze to accept, instead of thinking\analyzing to verify a hypothesis. They think to accept the hypothesis in order to fulfill their desire. In the spiritual community, i think the biggest desire is to obtain truth about oneself and it's relationship to\within existence, and the no.1 way to do this is through another hypothesis called Enlightenment. Apparently it's the ultimate state of being a human can achieve, and it's no stretch of my mind to imagine people having really strong desires for it. Thanks for clarifying your position. I've been prone to take Backlunds view as some final truth and I'd say that perhaps it's even been useful in a way to have been so pulled towards something. Spellbound, as you say. Useful in the sense that it's made me want to see this for myself. I can't say to have had any realizations such as Backlund reports but maybe that's because I was never in such an objective spell as he might have been pre realization. Who knows. In doing my own looking I can't verify or falsify any of what he says. It can't be verified because as he says, it's subjectivity all the way. It can't be falsified because it's subjectivity all the way. Which leads me to conclude that his realization is something "felt" in the body and "known" to be so on a level deeper than intellect. Who knows. When I read Backlund, I also get the feeling that there's something missing. That "there's more", which he's not yet aware of or ready for. And to me, that's okey. I can't expect everyone who speaks of these things to be "there", wherever that may be.
|
|
Goran
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by Goran on Jun 22, 2015 7:59:32 GMT -5
In my own words, Backlund unconsciously tries to spellbind others with tricksy words\sentence structure, yet all it takes is a little bit of common sense reasoning and examine below the surface to see the errors in his claims. Of course, people like Backlund, themselves unaware they are spellbound in Advaita doctrine, will not see it this way. They will reason\perceive they are totally free from illusion\they are fully enlightened\they have achieved the ultimate pure state of consciousness\or any other phrase they may wish to use to describe their current state of being. Jay17, have you read the book? The book isn't about believing something, it's about dismantling beliefs by way of logical scrutiny. What's left is no belief at all. That's not being spellbound – that's being logically thorough.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 23, 2015 3:42:45 GMT -5
In my own words, Backlund unconsciously tries to spellbind others with tricksy words\sentence structure, yet all it takes is a little bit of common sense reasoning and examine below the surface to see the errors in his claims. Of course, people like Backlund, themselves unaware they are spellbound in Advaita doctrine, will not see it this way. They will reason\perceive they are totally free from illusion\they are fully enlightened\they have achieved the ultimate pure state of consciousness\or any other phrase they may wish to use to describe their current state of being. Jay17, have you read the book? The book isn't about believing something, it's about dismantling beliefs by way of logical scrutiny. What's left is no belief at all. That's not being spellbound – that's being logically thorough. I take it you are the author of that book and web site?
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 23, 2015 4:13:24 GMT -5
This is one of the key words for me. There is the term, 'mindless belief'. It denotes that the believer has not used their mind to analyze something, that they accept it's true without thoughtful consideration. I do not agree with this hypothesis. I think all decisions humans make requires intellectual analysis of the experience. What i think the issues are is how much a person thinks about something\how deeply they examine, and what elements there are that influences their thinking process that determines their decisions\conclusions. One such influence is desire, the emotional sensations that arise when experiencing something that signifies self wants to obtain the thing being examined\experienced. What i have noticed within myself and talking with others is, when the desire to obtain is strong, objective analysis reduces due to bias towards that which one desires to obtain. The desire creates\fuels the bias. Sometimes people are self aware of this phenomena, sometimes not. The end result is people, in specific situations, will think\analyze to accept, instead of thinking\analyzing to verify a hypothesis. They think to accept the hypothesis in order to fulfill their desire. In the spiritual community, i think the biggest desire is to obtain truth about oneself and it's relationship to\within existence, and the no.1 way to do this is through another hypothesis called Enlightenment. Apparently it's the ultimate state of being a human can achieve, and it's no stretch of my mind to imagine people having really strong desires for it. Thanks for clarifying your position. I've been prone to take Backlunds view as some final truth and I'd say that perhaps it's even been useful in a way to have been so pulled towards something. Spellbound, as you say. Useful in the sense that it's made me want to see this for myself. I can't say to have had any realizations such as Backlund reports but maybe that's because I was never in such an objective spell as he might have been pre realization. Who knows. In doing my own looking I can't verify or falsify any of what he says. It can't be verified because as he says, it's subjectivity all the way. It can't be falsified because it's subjectivity all the way. Which leads me to conclude that his realization is something "felt" in the body and "known" to be so on a level deeper than intellect. Who knows. When I read Backlund, I also get the feeling that there's something missing. That "there's more", which he's not yet aware of or ready for. And to me, that's okey. I can't expect everyone who speaks of these things to be "there", wherever that may be. Well, Backlund does state his thoughts on the subject are truth, and i see no rational reason to stop anyone labeling anything any way they choose. I think individuals have the freedom and capacity to make up their own minds about elements within existence. Also, if you or anyone finds benefit in a thought\concept\philosophy, it seems logical to me that it would be classified as a truth. If an idea makes sense to a person, it seems logical and rational to go examine and test, see\examine, experience for oneself, and if one is satisfied, then the next step is to label it truth. I am in agreement with you regarding the subjectivity aspect of many things in existence and how that then makes it difficult to determine if something is an objective absolute truth, independent of any individual assessment. Which comes back to individuals labeling things as truth. It seems, in the human realm, there is objective and subjective truth, even though at the fundamental level it seems there is no such thing as objective truth as all values assigned to all phenomena are dependent on a human observer. But for argument's sake, say there is objective and subjective truth; A problem i come across often is when an individual thinks\believes their subjective truth is objective, and they go around trying to influence others to align themselves to these truths. Considering even the (theoretical) infinite nature of the physical universe, it seems reasonable to me to conclude there is always "more" to existence than anyone can perceive, but this has never stopped many people throughout human history to declare they have experienced and know all there to know about existence and themselves..and that many are obsessed\dedicated\goal orientated\deeply desirous of wanting to obtain all knowing. I wish these people well, and as long as their behavior, that is based on their desires, thoughts, and beliefs, does not adversely affect me journey or those i love, i see no rational reason for me to try to influence them to change their minds.
|
|
Goran
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by Goran on Jun 23, 2015 5:51:05 GMT -5
I take it you are the author of that book and web site? Yes!
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jun 23, 2015 14:44:00 GMT -5
In my own words, Backlund unconsciously tries to spellbind others with tricksy words\sentence structure, yet all it takes is a little bit of common sense reasoning and examine below the surface to see the errors in his claims. Of course, people like Backlund, themselves unaware they are spellbound in Advaita doctrine, will not see it this way. They will reason\perceive they are totally free from illusion\they are fully enlightened\they have achieved the ultimate pure state of consciousness\or any other phrase they may wish to use to describe their current state of being. Jay17, have you read the book? The book isn't about believing something, it's about dismantling beliefs by way of logical scrutiny. What's left is no belief at all. That's not being spellbound – that's being logically thorough. I do understand you perceive it that way, Goran. It has been my experience thus far that the vast majority of people i have interacted with who are into Eastern Philosophies, namely obtaining Enlightenment, Self Realization, Advaita, and yours "Awakening"...reason\conclude\think\perceive\are convinced they are no longer entrapped in illusion, or 'self delusion' as i prefer to call it. They all say very similar things as you are here. You are stating you have dismantled your beliefs about existence and are now seeing existence as it truly is, or something similar to that effect. I simply do not agree with your conclusion, nor expect or demand you agree with my thoughts on the matter, though i will talk some more about it. From your web site... While it seems to me you would call all that, truth, i would call it, beliefs. That you have not discovered the absolute truth about existence, but have merely adopted\aligned yourself to a new set of beliefs and have labeled them 'truth' because you are convinced they are. And as i constantly say to others, i have no reason to adversely interfere in that which you choose to align yourself to. If you believe you have obtained truth about existence, may those ideas benefit you well. But when i examine the same space you have, i see something different, thus i do not agree with your conclusions. I also am into Eastern Philosophies, but i simply am not interested in obtaining Enlightenment, or a one time experience known as Awakening. Nor do i agree with the theory\concept\speculation\belief that the physical realm is an illusion and thus all separate forms are too. I have no practical use for such ideas. I have developed to a state of near constant peace, joy and love of life.. thus have no need for that which you value so much. In answering your question, no, i have not read your book, nor see any need to as you have stated that what you say on your website is the short version of it, and i do not agree with your website thoughts, so there's no logical reason to read the longer version. Jay17, have you read the book? The book isn't about believing something, it's about dismantling beliefs by way of logical scrutiny. What's left is no belief at all. That's not being spellbound – that's being logically thorough. I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. If you choose to label this..."There’s no objective reality – there’s only experiencing", as truth, by all means do so. I simply do not agree with your conclusions.
|
|
Goran
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by Goran on Jun 25, 2015 1:34:01 GMT -5
I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2015 6:00:44 GMT -5
I maintain my position that you are spellbound. You perceive you are not encased in beliefs about existence, but you are in that you have simply adopted\aligned yourself to a set of ideas that asserts they are not ideas, they are the truth. I agree that it kind of looks like that, if one solely looks at what you cited from my article. Again, that's the "short" version. But let me clarify my view: The book reveals how an objective reality is a logical impossibility. It leaves you unable to believe that there's something out there – not merely because you're unwarranted in believing so, but because you've seen the logical misstep involved in believing so. So, it's not that I adopted new beliefs, or a new set of ideas. it's that I'm unable to believe the old ones. Stop 'believing' in old or new ideas.. suspend thinking/knowing/believing, stop 'looking' and start 'seeing'..
|
|