|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 20:28:57 GMT -5
That you unconsciously posed the double-bind of humility is a clue for you. About humility. You're speculating about the taste of a fruit you've never seen. If I was more concerned about our personal relationship I'd just STFU. I do value your correspondence .. I'd even thought about droppin' you a line sometime when I'm up North.  Believe me though, I wouldn't be really all that much of a friend to you by hiding the ball that way. I'm good with trusting my gut. For most peeps that means making an emotional decision. Ever read what Adya has to say about that? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 10, 2015 20:36:03 GMT -5
I'm good with trusting my gut. For most peeps that means making an emotional decision. Ever read what Adya has to say about that? No, never read what he said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 20:42:45 GMT -5
For most peeps that means making an emotional decision. Ever read what Adya has to say about that? No, never read what he said. I recommend it. The distinction between heart and gut is an important one. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 10, 2015 20:51:19 GMT -5
No, never read what he said. I recommend it. The distinction between heart and gut is an important one. When I say gut I mean inner knowing. THAT in me recognizes THAT in another. The clearer the Other the clearer the recognition. How could it not be? Anyway, can you point me to where I might find Adya's commentary on the subject? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 21:08:31 GMT -5
I recommend it. The distinction between heart and gut is an important one. When I say gut I mean inner knowing. THAT in me recognizes THAT in another. The clearer the Other the clearer the recognition. How could it not be? Anyway, can you point me to where I might find Adya's commentary on the subject? If you couldn't recognize your own pride in yourself, how can you expect to recognize the absence of it in the "OTHER"? Emptiness Dancing, I don't remember the chapter. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 10, 2015 21:14:35 GMT -5
First of all, I didn't say SR is, or what SR is. And I didn't say all karma had to be burned up before SR. I only said the journey is not over until all karma is burned up (because if it isn't, samskaras will ~force~ another incarnation). Dude, you wrote what ya' wrote and there's no point lawyering about it at this point and calling Niz as a material witness to make your case is just absurd. Reincarnation is a fairytale. OTOneH there is SR and OTOH there is imaginary SR. Neither requires that all karma be burned up. I know what I wrote. I have posted a good deal about karma here in the past, I know that it is not a subject of much interest here on ST's. Further than saying that, I realize discussion on this subject, presently, would be a waste of time, except to say, again, when Niz states the obvious, it may or may not be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 10, 2015 21:20:59 GMT -5
When I say gut I mean inner knowing. THAT in me recognizes THAT in another. The clearer the Other the clearer the recognition. How could it not be? Anyway, can you point me to where I might find Adya's commentary on the subject? , how can you expect to recognize the absence of it in the "OTHER"? Emptiness Dancing, I don't remember the chapter. Intuition isn't logical. Neither did I say I saw any pride in what I stated to Tano. I just wasn't gonna debate you about it. Feel free to state your view of it if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 21:42:46 GMT -5
Dude, you wrote what ya' wrote and there's no point lawyering about it at this point and calling Niz as a material witness to make your case is just absurd. Reincarnation is a fairytale. OTOneH there is SR and OTOH there is imaginary SR. Neither requires that all karma be burned up. I know what I wrote. Well, no, apparently you don't: It seems that OTOH there is SR and OTOH there is SR. However, if all karma is not burned up where one has a clean slate, the journey ain't over. It doesn't matter what kinds of words are thrown into the arena (dialogue) or by whom. In what you first wrote you didn't mention "imaginary SR" and didn't include the idea that "neither requires all karma be burned up". I have posted a good deal about karma here in the past, I know that it is not a subject of much interest here on ST's. Further than saying that, I realize discussion on this subject, presently, would be a waste of time, except to say, again, when Niz states the obvious, it may or may not be obvious. Do you think Niz is speaking about a "journey"? You've made it clear that the person doesn't reincarnate, and that's at least an improvement from a personalized conception of the belief, but we don't need the notions of karma, brahman or parabrahmin to recognize how unconscious action pollutes the world. Whether a person resolves that internally or not in their lifetime has nothing to do with that pollution. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 21:50:14 GMT -5
If you couldn't recognize your own pride in yourself, how can you expect to recognize the absence of it in the "OTHER"? Emptiness Dancing, I don't remember the chapter. Intuition isn't logical. Neither did I say I saw any pride in what I stated to Tano. I just wasn't gonna debate you about it. Feel free to state your view of it if you want. just passive aggression, and what debate do you think is going on here? What logical argument do you think I'm making? You think this is just an intellectual exercise? |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 10, 2015 21:55:06 GMT -5
Intuition isn't logical. Neither did I say I saw any pride in what I stated to Tano. I just wasn't gonna debate you about it. Feel free to state your view of it if you want. just passive aggression, and what debate do you think is going on here? What logical argument do you think I'm making? You think this is just an intellectual exercise? What pride did you see? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 10, 2015 21:56:16 GMT -5
With says that, that refers to the sentence underlined. I haven't read past page 26 (that's where I stopped that first day). I haven't found anything I disagree with. Why no more quotes? There are only so many hours in a day. But what do you mean by this: Give me a Niz quote that says that ( pre-SR). What do you mean by "says that pre-SR"? Precisely? You could make yourself clear by giving an example of what the quote you're looking for would look like. Just make one up as a hypothetical. Dude for all the posturing you do about how I'm so hard to understand, this is pretty ironic.  I would have to know how you define Self, to fully explain. A lot of stuff I read here and wish to respond to, I have to ~translate~ it into the language and understanding of my tradition, and then to reply, ~translate~ it back into the language of the poster. For me "Self" is in a very real sense, individuated. Who/what I take myself to be, is not wholly imaginary, for me, we are essence/(true self) and personality/ego/cultural self, the former real, the latter imaginary, aka false self, and imaginary I. So, pre(vious) to SR/TR, there is some kind of ~relationship~ with Self. Niz said, already quoted, that in those not SR (IOW, pre-SR), the unlimited and the limited are confused. My post was pondering the nature of "Self", and the nature of the "confusion". edit: I will also add, why would Niz use language which is meaningless to him? (i.e. causal body). |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 10, 2015 22:03:29 GMT -5
Intuition isn't logical. Neither did I say I saw any pride in what I stated to Tano. I just wasn't gonna debate you about it. Feel free to state your view of it if you want. just passive aggression, and what debate do you think is going on here? What logical argument do you think I'm making? You think this is just an intellectual exercise? All I said was that I recognized a certain quality of humility in certain folk who claim a CC experience. You seem to want to convince me that I can't know that. Fine. Lets agree to disagree. Going to bed now. Been a long day. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 22:28:21 GMT -5
That's just passive aggression, and what debate do you think is going on here? What logical argument do you think I'm making? You think this is just an intellectual exercise? What pride did you see? As you weren't conscious of double-binding tano about her humility, there was no humility in the observation. I didn't say I saw pride, what I asked was, if you can't see your own, how can you expect to see the absence of it in anyone else? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 10, 2015 22:28:29 GMT -5
OTOneH there is SR and OTOH there is imaginary SR. Neither requires that all karma be burned up. I know what I wrote. Well, no, apparently you don't: It seems that OTOH there is SR and OTOH there is SR. However, if all karma is not burned up where one has a clean slate, the journey ain't over. It doesn't matter what kinds of words are thrown into the arena (dialogue) or by whom. In what you first wrote you didn't mention "imaginary SR" and didn't include the idea that "neither requires all karma be burned up". I have posted a good deal about karma here in the past, I know that it is not a subject of much interest here on ST's. Further than saying that, I realize discussion on this subject, presently, would be a waste of time, except to say, again, when Niz states the obvious, it may or may not be obvious. Do you think Niz is speaking about a "journey"? You've made it clear that the person doesn't reincarnate, and that's at least an improvement from a personalized conception of the belief, but we don't need the notions of karma, brahman or parabrahmin to recognize how unconscious action pollutes the world. Whether a person resolves that internally or not in their lifetime has nothing to do with that pollution. First, why would I write OTOH SR and OTOH SR if I meant them to be the same? What difference does it make to you what I write about karma, since you don't ~believe in~ karma? Why would I go to the trouble to explain something someone is not interest in? I left things hanging and incomplete in anticipation that would be the end of the matter, and now that you asked for further explanation, and I explain, you deride it. That doesn't give me much incentive to continue, but as I have nothing else to do presently, I'm trying to answer. I said the ego/personality/cultural self doesn't reincarnate. But there is a "middle layer", the (individuated) causal body is the "middle layer". The samskaras (basically our crap), upon the death of the physical body, get dumped into the causal body, and these are what cause a future incarnation. When that time arises, a new mother-to-be ~gets picked~ to provide a new body for the "samskaras", and they get dumped into the pregnancy, most likely even getting involved in the picking of the genes, both male and female (sperm and egg). So, as I previously said, in a sense there is reincarnation, in a sense there isn't. And as I also said, I know precisely what Niz was saying in the quotes, and what he meant, he was very clear. (And BTW, up to page 85, still rolling...). And I am firmly convinced that nothing Niz said is distorted through cultural conditioning, if it was then he lied about his knowledge and understanding and ~who he was~. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 22:35:59 GMT -5
But what do you mean by this: What do you mean by "says that pre-SR"? Precisely? You could make yourself clear by giving an example of what the quote you're looking for would look like. Just make one up as a hypothetical. Dude for all the posturing you do about how I'm so hard to understand, this is pretty ironic. I would have to know how you define Self, to fully explain. A lot of stuff I read here and wish to respond to, I have to ~translate~ it into the language and understanding of my tradition, and then to reply, ~translate~ it back into the language of the poster. For me "Self" is in a very real sense, individuated. Who/what I take myself to be, is not wholly imaginary, for me, we are essence/(true self) and personality/ego/cultural self, the former real, the latter imaginary, aka false self, and imaginary I. So, pre(vious) to SR/TR, there is some kind of ~relationship~ with Self. Niz said, already quoted, that in those not SR (IOW, pre-SR), the unlimited and the limited are confused. My post was pondering the nature of "Self", and the nature of the "confusion". Look, you've prevaricated to the point where the dialog is now meaningless. Congrats. I'm not going to counter with anything other than that observation. edit: I will also add, why would Niz use language which is meaningless to him? (i.e. causal body). Here, I'll return the favor.  Why are you asking me that question? |
|
Why are you asking me that question?