|
|
Post by unveilable on Sept 23, 2011 11:48:21 GMT -5
ZD just mentioned me in a post! Thats exciting to the remaining chunks.  Carol often gets irritated that I come to this website rather than doing other things that she thinks I ought to be doing. Ha ha. I tell her that this is comedy central, and we have the best cast of characters that anyone could imagine. What a show! I don't know about anybody else, but to me this forum offers more fun than even a Republican debate, and that's saying a helluva lot! I've got TRF constantly yanking on my leg, Mr. T. telling me that I'm a mindless dumba** (which I happily acknowledge that I am), E. telling us about his squirrel satsangs, Andrew who keeps a loving heart no matter how many insults are thrown his way, Porto constantly injecting his wry humor, SomeNothing dropping in every few months to add some international laughs, Acewall visiting from another planet, Question constantly doing what his name requires him to do, JasonL lobbing hand grenades over the fence every once in a while and then disappearing back into his cave, Enda living in paradise but popping in for an occasional clarification, Mamza getting frustrated at all the cobwebs that keep blocking his view, Vacant and Unveilable who have numerous insights but often start second-guessing themselves as they toss away more and more chunks of mind, numerous ladies who are very clear but have been lurking and not posting much lately, 1HC laughing all the time, and a whole host of other fantastic manifestations of oneness. Who could ask for anything more? |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 11:57:23 GMT -5
beat me to this post -- saw it this morn as well. Love it when stuff like this happens. oops, there goes another paradigm. the neutrino just shot through a whole bunch of story. but there will be much discussing and formulizing. Lol...observe the observer |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 11:58:19 GMT -5
Im not sure what my point is. Hmmm. I guess what Im saying is that I think that if enlightenment/realization is the goal (as it would be for anyone attending a Tony Parson's seminar) some kind of work has to be done. And I think the work is in releasing the need for understanding and knowledge itself. In a way, it could be said that's what Tony Parsons teaches. As I say, there's a lot of resistance to the stripped down, practiceless, direct, unadorned, teachingless teaching of Truth, and of course that's where the derogatory term 'neo-advaita' comes from, and I spose Parsons is the number one target. Letting go of everything, which is what "releasing the need for understanding and knowledge" (and control) means, is something nobody wants to do and so there can be a serious backlash to this suggestion. Conversely, there are thousands of years of devoted following to teachers who have a portfolio of 112 practices, one of which will surely win you the prize. Every teaching is distorted by it's followers in some way that serves ego, so pointing to the distortions as evidence that the teaching is wrong or ineffective is misleading. The mind identified person gets very uncomfy with the reality of such teachings, and will look for any reason to dismiss it. It may FEEL like it lacks warmth or compassion or love or joy or the embracing of life or some such, but it's not hard to notice that Parsons is a very unassuming character who is always smiling and laughing and joking. It's almost like he gets the joke and he's just trying to find a way to tell it so that you get it too. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 11:59:23 GMT -5
Carol often gets irritated that I come to this website rather than doing other things that she thinks I ought to be doing. Ha ha. I tell her that this is comedy central, and we have the best cast of characters that anyone could imagine. What a show! I don't know about anybody else, but to me this forum offers more fun than even a Republican debate, and that's saying a helluva lot! I've got TRF constantly yanking on my leg, Mr. T. telling me that I'm a mindless dumba** (which I happily acknowledge that I am), E. telling us about his squirrel satsangs, Andrew who keeps a loving heart no matter how many insults are thrown his way, Porto constantly injecting his wry humor, SomeNothing dropping in every few months to add some international laughs, Acewall visiting from another planet, Question constantly doing what his name requires him to do, JasonL lobbing hand grenades over the fence every once in a while and then disappearing back into his cave, Enda living in paradise but popping in for an occasional clarification, Mamza getting frustrated at all the cobwebs that keep blocking his view, Vacant and Unveilable who have numerous insights but often start second-guessing themselves as they toss away more and more chunks of mind, numerous ladies who are very clear but have been lurking and not posting much lately, 1HC laughing all the time, and a whole host of other fantastic manifestations of oneness. Who could ask for anything more? ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 23, 2011 12:30:43 GMT -5
There is absolutely no doubt in my 'mind' that the imagined conceptual Tath, is experiencing the reading of these words. And that's true because 'Nothing' can't read...lol Peace Then you have at least one huge thing yet to discover. There is no Tath or TRF, and what E. and I are pointing to is what is actually reading these words. The living truth has nothing to do with any kind of conceptualization. I have no doubt that there is no doubt in your mind, but this has nothing to do with mind. My friend it has absolutely everything to do with the mind...heh The concept of no me, no you, no nobody or a living truth, is a 'concept'... And the most insidious 'concept' is the one that states that a 'concept' is pointing to something non conceptual, and that non conceptual 'concept' can read...lol 'Nothing' can't read, it can't think, it can't do anything and this concept of mine is just as valid as a concept that says that 'nothing' can 'do' all those 'concepts' that you say that it can do. Only a mind can read and only a mind can think about what it's reading. Could you read when you were born? Did you know what words were when you looked at them as an infant? 'Nothing' was there as it is now. Your conceptually suggesting that 'nothing' didn't know how to read then, but it learned how to read sometime later, which is absurd. What you think is the world, is the imagination of the conceptual mind, including the concept of a you and a me... The mind experiences itself as an object of it's own imagination, and so it believes a separate self into existence So in that sense I agree with you that there really isn't a real you. You cannot experience 'nothing', because the mind doesn't posses a conceptualization of 'nothing' and if it does, it's not 'nothing'. We are human beings, the human is the conceptualization of the mind which we experience as the sense of 'I AM' and the being is 'nothing' in which the mind and awareness arise. You said once to 'let it all go' which means to let the conceptualized world of the mind go, or the world of 'knowing'. So let it all go, and 'be' not knowing, or 'nothing'... Peace |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 12:47:26 GMT -5
Im not sure what my point is. Hmmm. I guess what Im saying is that I think that if enlightenment/realization is the goal (as it would be for anyone attending a Tony Parson's seminar) some kind of work has to be done. And I think the work is in releasing the need for understanding and knowledge itself. In a way, it could be said that's what Tony Parsons teaches. As I say, there's a lot of resistance to the stripped down, practiceless, direct, unadorned, teachingless teaching of Truth, and of course that's where the derogatory term 'neo-advaita' comes from, and I spose Parsons is the number one target. Letting go of everything, which is what "releasing the need for understanding and knowledge" (and control) means, is something nobody wants to do and so there can be a serious backlash to this suggestion. Conversely, there are thousands of years of devoted following to teachers who have a portfolio of 112 practices, one of which will surely win you the prize. Every teaching is distorted by it's followers in some way that serves ego, so pointing to the distortions as evidence that the teaching is wrong or ineffective is misleading. The mind identified person gets very uncomfy with the reality of such teachings, and will look for any reason to dismiss it. It may FEEL like it lacks warmth or compassion or love or joy or the embracing of life or some such, but it's not hard to notice that Parsons is a very unassuming character who is always smiling and laughing and joking. It's almost like he gets the joke and he's just trying to find a way to tell it so that you get it too. I like T.P too and I dont question his enlightenment, I just dont reckon many come out of his seminar having released the need for understanding and knowledge. I just think the tendency is that new understandings and knowledge are gained, and though on the surface it may seem as if the need has been lost, the need has just been disguised. I think the approach very much appeals to ego for this reason....the ego gets to hide its need beneath a bunch of rhetoric about there being no-one and no path. I doubt many feel uncomfortable at a seminar of Tony's, in fact I would be willing to bet that most people are aware prior to going what they are going to be fed while there. In its own way, I think the neo-advaita 'philosophy' is an addiction in itself. Its almost as if the state or experience of beingness is only achieved temporarily through the words being uttered by the teacher, which would explain why those that I have met that are into neo-advaita are constantly reading and re-reading the same kind of books from the same kinds of teachers. A constant sort of reinforcement is required. Interestingly, from what I understand, T.P did do meditation practice and went through counselling prior to his enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 13:04:19 GMT -5
Then you have at least one huge thing yet to discover. There is no Tath or TRF, and what E. and I are pointing to is what is actually reading these words. The living truth has nothing to do with any kind of conceptualization. I have no doubt that there is no doubt in your mind, but this has nothing to do with mind. My friend it has absolutely everything to do with the mind...heh The concept of no me, no you, no nobody or a living truth, is a 'concept'... And the most insidious 'concept' is the one that states that a 'concept' is pointing to something non conceptual, and that non conceptual 'concept' can read...lol 'Nothing' can't read, it can't think, it can't do anything and this concept of mine is just as valid as a concept that says that 'nothing' can 'do' all those 'concepts' that you say that it can do. Only a mind can read and only a mind can think about what it's reading. Could you read when you were born? Did you know what words were when you looked at them as an infant? 'Nothing' was there as it is now. Your conceptually suggesting that 'nothing' didn't know how to read then, but it learned how to read sometime later, which is absurd. What you think is the world, is the imagination of the conceptual mind, including the concept of a you and a me... The mind experiences itself as an object of it's own imagination, and so it believes a separate self into existence So in that sense I agree with you that there really isn't a real you. You cannot experience 'nothing', because the mind doesn't posses a conceptualization of 'nothing' and if it does, it's not 'nothing'. We are human beings, the human is the conceptualization of the mind which we experience as the sense of 'I AM' and the being is 'nothing' in which the mind and awareness arise. You said once to 'let it all go' which means to let the conceptualized world of the mind go, or the world of 'knowing'. So let it all go, and 'be' not knowing, or 'nothing'... Peace I dont always get everything you say TRF, but I think I got this and I resonate with it. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 13:11:15 GMT -5
tath - your link is jacked observe the observer can't you multi task my friend? lol Link seems to work Popee...try again if your interested |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 13:13:11 GMT -5
My friend it has absolutely everything to do with the mind...heh The concept of no me, no you, no nobody or a living truth, is a 'concept'... And the most insidious 'concept' is the one that states that a 'concept' is pointing to something non conceptual, and that non conceptual 'concept' can read...lol 'Nothing' can't read, it can't think, it can't do anything and this concept of mine is just as valid as a concept that says that 'nothing' can 'do' all those 'concepts' that you say that it can do. Only a mind can read and only a mind can think about what it's reading. Could you read when you were born? Did you know what words were when you looked at them as an infant? 'Nothing' was there as it is now. Your conceptually suggesting that 'nothing' didn't know how to read then, but it learned how to read sometime later, which is absurd. What you think is the world, is the imagination of the conceptual mind, including the concept of a you and a me... The mind experiences itself as an object of it's own imagination, and so it believes a separate self into existence So in that sense I agree with you that there really isn't a real you. You cannot experience 'nothing', because the mind doesn't posses a conceptualization of 'nothing' and if it does, it's not 'nothing'. We are human beings, the human is the conceptualization of the mind which we experience as the sense of 'I AM' and the being is 'nothing' in which the mind and awareness arise. You said once to 'let it all go' which means to let the conceptualized world of the mind go, or the world of 'knowing'. So let it all go, and 'be' not knowing, or 'nothing'... Peace I dont always get everything you say TRF, but I think I got this and I resonate with it. Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Sept 23, 2011 13:23:43 GMT -5
When their mind-enlightenment is questioned the reply is invariably ''well, who is the one.....?''. I dont see neo-advaita as threatening to the existent or non-existent ego, I see it as a comfort. The ego gets to hide in a rhetoric that is very difficult to unweave and undo because the whole principle of neo-advaita is that there is nothing to unweave and undo. Spot on, Andrew. +1 And this no volition thing Lmao....what a wonderful way to blame the universe for your suffering instead of taking personal responsibilty for it while at the same time getting to feel all special when the universe chooses you for enlightenment lol. Interesting discussion. I can see both sides of the neo-advita story. I don't know a lot about neo-advita, but I can see how ego can get ahold of "nothing to do" and it will love the fact that it can sit on it's butt watching tv and eating potato chips. Meanwhile, it is actually doing something, namely doing nothing, while expecting something to happen. On the other hand, I don't think the neo-advita teachings are targeted at the mind. So, I think it's best that the mind just forgets about all this neo-advita stuff. LOL @ Tat. I don't know where you get this stuff. You don't even see that you are defending an unchallenged and tightly held idea. For someone with your knowledge of spiritual teachings, I am amazed at your level of unconsciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 14:25:50 GMT -5
And I think the work is in releasing the need for understanding and knowledge itself. What if I pick up a need for paradox instead of a need for knowledge? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 14:32:12 GMT -5
Individuation talks to individuation Like in 'mouth talks to ear?' |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 14:44:15 GMT -5
And I think the work is in releasing the need for understanding and knowledge itself. What if I pick up a need for paradox instead of a need for knowledge? well, I guess that would need releasing too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 14:50:56 GMT -5
Individuation talks to individuation Like in 'mouth talks to ear?' Hmmm. Not specifically. Thing is I wouldnt particularly say that individuation talks to individuation, but it makes more sense than saying absolute talks to absolute because at least at the relative level there is both form and contrast. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 14:56:51 GMT -5
I dont always get everything you say TRF, but I think I got this and I resonate with it. Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ;D |
|
Carol often gets irritated that I come to this website rather than doing other things that she thinks I ought to be doing. Ha ha. I tell her that this is comedy central, and we have the best cast of characters that anyone could imagine. What a show! I don't know about anybody else, but to me this forum offers more fun than even a Republican debate, and that's saying a helluva lot!
