Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 7:24:47 GMT -5
You know that mind that you tried to control with 30 years of meditation.. it never went anywhere!! How would you know? It's obvious, you're the only one that can't see it.. there is a part of me that does want to laugh at you for it. Though there is another part that just feels sorry for you.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 24, 2019 7:30:13 GMT -5
It's obvious, you're the only one that can't see it.. there is a part of me that does want to laugh at you for it. Though there is another part that just feels sorry for you. It's good to let your emotions have free reign. May you enjoy the mother of all catharses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 7:35:07 GMT -5
It's obvious, you're the only one that can't see it.. there is a part of me that does want to laugh at you for it. Though there is another part that just feels sorry for you. It's good to let your emotions have free reign. May you enjoy the mother of all catharses. You're obviously telling yourself something that you want to hear now.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 24, 2019 7:45:13 GMT -5
It's good to let your emotions have free reign. May you enjoy the mother of all catharses. You're obviously telling yourself something that you want to hear now. Are you schizoid as well because you appear as Jaspa in the Tapatalk app, but as ten_ten in my browser.😀
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 7:53:58 GMT -5
You're obviously telling yourself something that you want to hear now. Are you schizoid as well because you appear as Jaspa in the Tapatalk app, but as ten_ten in my browser.😀 All of this cyclical insulting was directed towards yourself for 30 years wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2019 7:54:51 GMT -5
E has had this Realization. It's nonsense. So all day every day he has to make the obvious fit into his Realization, which makes him distort what's actual all day every day. He turns the whole universe upside down. He throws out time and space and cause and effect and makes this world into a dream world. I don't think so. You agree that outer world existence can't be known. So If outer world doesn't exist, then he is correct . No cause and effect if outer world doesn't exist. Can't be known and doesn't exist are vastly different. To be specific I have said we can't demonstrate or prove, to another, that an exterior world exists. However, I can and have demonstrated to my own satisfaction, subjectively objective, that the exterior world does indeed exist. And anyone can do the same.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 24, 2019 8:11:17 GMT -5
I don't think so. You agree that outer world existence can't be known. So If outer world doesn't exist, then he is correct . No cause and effect if outer world doesn't exist. Can't be known and doesn't exist are vastly different. To be specific I have said we can't demonstrate or prove, to another, that an exterior world exists. However, I can and have demonstrated to my own satisfaction, subjectively objective, that the exterior world does indeed exist. And anyone can do the same. It seems that the extreme view of advaita has taken hold in the West. I wonder how many are aware that the other non-dual school of Tantric Shaivism proclaims the world to be real. According to Shaivism there is Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (matter) And when Buddha was asked if the world is real, if there is such a thing as existence, he replied that it would be too much of an extreme to say there is existence and it would be too much of an extreme to say there is non-existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 8:22:21 GMT -5
Can't be known and doesn't exist are vastly different. To be specific I have said we can't demonstrate or prove, to another, that an exterior world exists. However, I can and have demonstrated to my own satisfaction, subjectively objective, that the exterior world does indeed exist. And anyone can do the same. It seems that the extreme view of advaita has taken hold in the West. I wonder how many are aware that the other non-dual school of Tantric Shaivism proclaims the world to be real. According to Shaivism there is Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (matter) And when Buddha was asked if the world is real, if there is such a thing as existence, he replied that it would be too much of an extreme to say there is existence and it would be too much of an extreme to say there is non-existence. Is this another of your half-baked summaries, that you expect people to consider some kind of informed and learned understanding?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2019 8:28:58 GMT -5
Can't be known and doesn't exist are vastly different. To be specific I have said we can't demonstrate or prove, to another, that an exterior world exists. However, I can and have demonstrated to my own satisfaction, subjectively objective, that the exterior world does indeed exist. And anyone can do the same. It seems that the extreme view of advaita has taken hold in the West. I wonder how many are aware that the other non-dual school of Tantric Shaivism proclaims the world to be real. According to Shaivism there is Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (matter) And when Buddha was asked if the world is real, if there is such a thing as existence, he replied that it would be too much of an extreme to say there is existence and it would be too much of an extreme to say there is non-existence. Yes, that's why a distinction between traditional Advaita and neo-advaita (modern nondualism) must be made. James Swartz is pretty good on traditional Advaita. I'll stick with him, and traditional sources, especially concerning what Maya is. (Maya doesn't mean the exterior world does not exist).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2019 8:42:22 GMT -5
It seems that the extreme view of advaita has taken hold in the West. I wonder how many are aware that the other non-dual school of Tantric Shaivism proclaims the world to be real. According to Shaivism there is Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (matter) And when Buddha was asked if the world is real, if there is such a thing as existence, he replied that it would be too much of an extreme to say there is existence and it would be too much of an extreme to say there is non-existence. Is this another of your half-baked summaries, that you expect people to consider some kind of informed and learned understanding? Different opinions exist. What sca states is correct. Coming to an objective understanding is in no way easy, and then when it is arrived at it can't be demonstrated or proven to others. The path that got to that understanding can be shared, but the subjectivity of an individual prevents being able to evaluate paths objectively. IOW, we are at the mercy of our own subjective self, self invariably chooses what pleases itself. I suggest this has to be understood so as not to allow "SR" to enter through the back door, as TRUTH. I am wary of any "paradigm" that does not effect change, IOW, makes it OK for self to remain as is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2019 8:45:55 GMT -5
Did you read my Dalai Lama quotes from Gentle Bridges? Do you think the Dalai Lama is not an authority concerning Buddhism? He said everyone has an innate sense of self that is not a mistaken sense of self. He said no inherent (self) existence does not mean there is no self in any sense. an innate sense of self that is not a mistaken sense of self. That is a very important distinction and not appreciating it is at the root of all the nondual misunderstandings here which leads to ideological posturing. Bingo, bingo, bingo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 8:52:26 GMT -5
Is this another of your half-baked summaries, that you expect people to consider some kind of informed and learned understanding? Different opinions exist. What sca states is correct. Coming to an objective understanding is in no way easy, and then when it is arrived at it can't be demonstrated or proven to others. The path that got to that understanding can be shared, but the subjectivity of an individual prevents being able to evaluate paths objectively. IOW, we are at the mercy of our own subjective self, self invariably chooses what pleases itself. I suggest this has to be understood so as not to allow "SR" to enter through the back door, as TRUTH. I am wary of any "paradigm" that does not effect change, IOW, makes it OK for self to remain as is. When you say 'what pleases itself', do you mean what it has cultivated? Or put another way.. what it has put it's 'heart and soul' into?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 24, 2019 9:02:51 GMT -5
James Swartz is pretty good on traditional Advaita. I'll stick with him, and traditional sources, especially concerning what Maya is. (Maya doesn't mean the exterior world does not exist). He has some really good resources on his website as you will know. It's worth putting up a link. www.shiningworld.com
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 24, 2019 9:08:47 GMT -5
I don't remember, do you believe in volition? If so, the discussion is pointless. Are you seriously telling me that you're not capable of making a judgment about something? Is that what you think no-volition means?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 24, 2019 9:11:23 GMT -5
it's common sense that there is separation between objects in the world. Your perception tells you that. Common sense is overrated.
|
|