|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 25, 2017 12:41:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Oct 27, 2017 0:15:08 GMT -5
From the link... "Finally, it gives simple, concise explanations of the techniques of the Hindu mystical tradition of Advaita Vedanta that are the royal road to enlightenment. " Why would a new process be needed if the underlined were true. Hasn't this tradition been effective is helping people reach enlightenment? I interpet your advert for your book like this... The well established and highly successful route to enlightenmentdoesn't work, try this new way of reaching it. And that seems to undermine the claims you make of Advaita right off the bat. For surely if Advaita was all that, then you'ld simply be directing people to that traditional eastern religion. Though I wouldn't mind having a read of at least a chapter, for you also state... "Unlike many other spiritual systems, it encourages critical thinking and explains enlightenment within a persuasive philosophical framework. " .. and thus far, the Devottees here make no rational sense when describing Advaita, and they are so anti-Mind. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 1, 2017 22:57:58 GMT -5
From the link... "Finally, it gives simple, concise explanations of the techniques of the Hindu mystical tradition of Advaita Vedanta that are the royal road to enlightenment. " Why would a new process be needed if the underlined were true. Hasn't this tradition been effective is helping people reach enlightenment? I interpet your advert for your book like this... The well established and highly successful route to enlightenmentdoesn't work, try this new way of reaching it. And that seems to undermine the claims you make of Advaita right off the bat. For surely if Advaita was all that, then you'ld simply be directing people to that traditional eastern religion. Though I wouldn't mind having a read of at least a chapter, for you also state... "Unlike many other spiritual systems, it encourages critical thinking and explains enlightenment within a persuasive philosophical framework. " .. and thus far, the Devottees here make no rational sense when describing Advaita, and they are so anti-Mind. Advaita is indeed the royal road, but it is not an easy one. It leads you to the destination, but it requires preparation to take it. The preparation that has been recommended in the past, to seekers living in ashrams in a previous era, is not adequate for today. Thus a larger system that takes advaita's principles and places them in a more workable, contemporary context, with far more sophisticated preparation, is needed. That is what my book & website provide. |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 3, 2017 20:57:50 GMT -5
From the link... "Finally, it gives simple, concise explanations of the techniques of the Hindu mystical tradition of Advaita Vedanta that are the royal road to enlightenment. " Why would a new process be needed if the underlined were true. Hasn't this tradition been effective is helping people reach enlightenment? I interpet your advert for your book like this... The well established and highly successful route to enlightenment doesn't work, try this new way of reaching it. And that seems to undermine the claims you make of Advaita right off the bat. For surely if Advaita was all that, then you'ld simply be directing people to that traditional eastern religion. Though I wouldn't mind having a read of at least a chapter, for you also state... "Unlike many other spiritual systems, it encourages critical thinking and explains enlightenment within a persuasive philosophical framework. " .. and thus far, the Devotees here make no rational sense when describing Advaita, and they are so anti-Mind. Advaita is indeed the royal road, but it is not an easy one. It leads you to the destination, but it requires preparation to take it. The preparation that has been recommended in the past, to seekers living in ashrams in a previous era, is not adequate for today. Thus a larger system that takes advaita's principles and places them in a more workable, contemporary context, with far more sophisticated preparation, is needed. That is what my book & website provide. Seems to me you haven't answered my question. I'll ask another one, when did the original process of Advaita cease being effective, thus a new process was required? |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 3, 2017 21:43:45 GMT -5
Advaita is indeed the royal road, but it is not an easy one. It leads you to the destination, but it requires preparation to take it. The preparation that has been recommended in the past, to seekers living in ashrams in a previous era, is not adequate for today. Thus a larger system that takes advaita's principles and places them in a more workable, contemporary context, with far more sophisticated preparation, is needed. That is what my book & website provide. Seems to me you haven't answered my question. I'll ask another one, when did the original process of Advaita cease being effective, thus a new process was required? The original process never ceased to be effective. It is that the context changed what was required to execute the process. Suppose you told someone 2000 years ago that to live harmoniously with others it was necessary to be a good citizen in a well-ordered society. That may be as true now as it was then, but the nature of society has changed. Being a good citizen in a well-ordered society then may have meant respecting the Emperor and following certain customs. To be a good citizen now may mean participating in democratic processes and civic institutions. Suppose someone told you then that in order to be happy, you had to have a system of thinking which accounted reasonably well for your experience of the world. Back then, that experience was quite different than experience now. Your knowledge of other cultures would have been limited. Mass media was non-existent. Technology was, relatively speaking, primitive. Modern science was as of yet undeveloped. And at the same time, survival challenges were quite different: religious ritual may have been a huge aspect of experience. So the kind of intellectual system that accounted satisfactorily for that world wouldn't account satisfactorily for our current one. The same is true for the modern mind, which is different from the minds shaped by prior cultures and circumstances. A critical part of those circumstances is, indeed, the very fact of the development of culture. Every subsequent development of culture is itself an aspect of experience that needs to be accounted for. Anyhow, analogously, if a system of self-realization makes demands about how to climb a mountain, the basic goal (ascend till you hit the summit) may be the same, but the process may be very different now than it was then. That's what my system is: an update of the timeless ideas for this time and set of circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 3, 2017 21:51:17 GMT -5
Seems to me you haven't answered my question. I'll ask another one, when did the original process of Advaita cease being effective, thus a new process was required? The original process never ceased to be effective. Then I reason there is absolutely no need for your new version. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 3, 2017 22:39:13 GMT -5
The original process never ceased to be effective. Then I reason there is absolutely no need for your new version. I don't really see how that responds to any of what I said, but ok. |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 4, 2017 18:40:20 GMT -5
Then I reason there is absolutely no need for your new version. I don't really see how that responds to any of what I said, but ok. If you can't see how my response relates to that which I quoted, then I change my mind. I have no interest in reading any part of your book if you struggle to comprehend my response to your one sentence statement. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 5, 2017 17:09:15 GMT -5
Seems to me you haven't answered my question. I'll ask another one, when did the original process of Advaita cease being effective, thus a new process was required? The original process never ceased to be effective. It is that the context changed what was required to execute the process. Suppose you told someone 2000 years ago that to live harmoniously with others it was necessary to be a good citizen in a well-ordered society. That may be as true now as it was then, but the nature of society has changed. Being a good citizen in a well-ordered society then may have meant respecting the Emperor and following certain customs. To be a good citizen now may mean participating in democratic processes and civic institutions. Suppose someone told you then that in order to be happy, you had to have a system of thinking which accounted reasonably well for your experience of the world. Back then, that experience was quite different than experience now. Your knowledge of other cultures would have been limited. Mass media was non-existent. Technology was, relatively speaking, primitive. Modern science was as of yet undeveloped. And at the same time, survival challenges were quite different: religious ritual may have been a huge aspect of experience. So the kind of intellectual system that accounted satisfactorily for that world wouldn't account satisfactorily for our current one. The same is true for the modern mind, which is different from the minds shaped by prior cultures and circumstances. A critical part of those circumstances is, indeed, the very fact of the development of culture. Every subsequent development of culture is itself an aspect of experience that needs to be accounted for. Anyhow, analogously, if a system of self-realization makes demands about how to climb a mountain, the basic goal (ascend till you hit the summit) may be the same, but the process may be very different now than it was then. That's what my system is: an update of the timeless ideas for this time and set of circumstances. Personally speaking, I've always been amazed at how little general interest there seems to be in the cultural contexts of the past. I can remember looking at a package of chicken when I was a little kid, asking about how people used to get their food, and at one point, getting rather anxious at my dependence on the supermarket.  |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 5, 2017 22:05:26 GMT -5
The original process never ceased to be effective. It is that the context changed what was required to execute the process. Suppose you told someone 2000 years ago that to live harmoniously with others it was necessary to be a good citizen in a well-ordered society. That may be as true now as it was then, but the nature of society has changed. Being a good citizen in a well-ordered society then may have meant respecting the Emperor and following certain customs. To be a good citizen now may mean participating in democratic processes and civic institutions. Suppose someone told you then that in order to be happy, you had to have a system of thinking which accounted reasonably well for your experience of the world. Back then, that experience was quite different than experience now. Your knowledge of other cultures would have been limited. Mass media was non-existent. Technology was, relatively speaking, primitive. Modern science was as of yet undeveloped. And at the same time, survival challenges were quite different: religious ritual may have been a huge aspect of experience. So the kind of intellectual system that accounted satisfactorily for that world wouldn't account satisfactorily for our current one. The same is true for the modern mind, which is different from the minds shaped by prior cultures and circumstances. A critical part of those circumstances is, indeed, the very fact of the development of culture. Every subsequent development of culture is itself an aspect of experience that needs to be accounted for. Anyhow, analogously, if a system of self-realization makes demands about how to climb a mountain, the basic goal (ascend till you hit the summit) may be the same, but the process may be very different now than it was then. That's what my system is: an update of the timeless ideas for this time and set of circumstances. Personally speaking, I've always been amazed at how little general interest there seems to be in the cultural contexts of the past. I can remember looking at a package of chicken when I was a little kid, asking about how people used to get their food, and at one point, getting rather anxious at my dependence on the supermarket. Was the supermarket not where food always came from?  Next you'll be telling me pizza didn't always come from the delivery guy! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2017 10:01:51 GMT -5
Personally speaking, I've always been amazed at how little general interest there seems to be in the cultural contexts of the past. I can remember looking at a package of chicken when I was a little kid, asking about how people used to get their food, and at one point, getting rather anxious at my dependence on the supermarket. Was the supermarket not where food always came from? Next you'll be telling me pizza didn't always come from the delivery guy!  Dude. There might be children reading this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 7, 2017 9:00:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 9:48:06 GMT -5
I've been impressed with your posts and read the preface of your book. Other than math and science books, I haven't read a book in years-- except one WW2 book ( trying to write a war service history of my wife's grandfathher). I intend to read yours. I like the pro-intellect slant. I'm quite intrigued with your blog on Self Enquiry, the common mistakes. You're a great addition to this site. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 11, 2018 20:30:57 GMT -5
I've been impressed with your posts and read the preface of your book. Other than math and science books, I haven't read a book in years-- except one WW2 book ( trying to write a war service history of my wife's grandfathher). I intend to read yours. I like the pro-intellect slant. I'm quite intrigued with your blog on Self Enquiry, the common mistakes. You're a great addition to this site. Thank you! Pleased to be of service. |
|
|
|
Post by explorer on Jul 17, 2018 17:03:32 GMT -5
I like what you say in your writing about animals not always being transcendent or detached from so-called "negative" emotions. As you say, they feel grief for example. And that is healthy for them and for humans too. Anger is sometimes a taboo in the teachings of some enlightenment teachers, but it can be healthy and valid. One thing that makes me angry is the way seekers are deceived by shoddy teachers. Organised religion for example generally sells people short. Priests who mouth the words of sacred texts don't (in general) experience what they are talking about and this leaves their congregations unaware of the reality and joy of awakening.
|
|
Next you'll be telling me pizza didn't always come from the delivery guy!
Dude. There might be children reading this. 
