|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2015 22:50:46 GMT -5
Well, no, apparently you don't: 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". 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? That there was a distinction between two different forms of "SR" was obvious, but you didn't write that one was imaginary and one wasn't. Also, in the first thing your wrote you implied that the difference between the two was the burnt-off karma, but the 2nd time around you write that neither requires karma to be burned up. 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. Wow, you're completely re-writing history. You accosted me with the idea of karma to begin with, and no, it's not accurate to write that "I don't believe in karma", it's just that we have very different ideas about it. And as you yourself put so well, you knew that already before you started the dialog about it. 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~. Look now you're back to using Niz to argue for your ideas about personal reincarnation and I'm sorry, but it's just not there. Niz is very clear on the nature of the person. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2015 4:39:23 GMT -5
whatever, sounds to me like an ego wanting to be right--- Well sure sunny I'll step right up and give that a big hug, but dude, I could give half a rats a$$ about bein' "right".  As long as we're drawing breath there is some sort of opposition going on, and any time we oppose another person in any way shape or form we've put on the ego suit. It's not possible to shed it completely and play on the screen -- that's just ego in disguise wearing the costume of piety. The only really relevant question is, are we conscious of that as its playing out? Or not? I'll name my ego here as having two parts. One is that since Jed is very unlikely to make an appearance on this thread, I've decided to embrace the conceit that I understand him quite a bit better than you and the others that are in this dialog with our new friend tano. The other is sort of an assumed sense of camaraderie with her. So, can you do the same sunny? Can you name your ego on this thread? Don't worry, if you can't, mine can.  you know zilch about me,my life nor experience, so it is just speculation on your part---adios... Now you're just compounding your first cop-out because all that I need to know about you for what I wrote you've already written. What I know is that you consider that peace doesn't happen until you've opened all your chakras. a soon , as long as one is in the realm of mind, ego will be present and contaminate in some way or other.It happnes with Jed, you,me Tano everyone.I understood Jed as claiming it isnt so.That is one of my objections against him,or rather, his 3 first books.I never read the sequels as for Peace to happen only after all chakras are opened, i did not mean to say that,i dont recall saying that.The more chakras are open, the more it ´´thickens´´ and expands. maybe we should define Peace before we move on.But i have not the time for that.There may be different ´´levels´´(for want of a better word) of peace.I suspect there are, my experience there are. I was on the way out of the forum,when your comment came.I´ll be back in some weeks or months. the only peace i know of that can not be ´´described in words´´, is trance-like state beyond mind, but that leaves one impotent to act on-in the world, because, to do that, mind is indispensable. so think you misunderstood me. seeya´round peace to all  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 7:54:48 GMT -5
For most peeps that means making an emotional decision. Ever read what Adya has to say about that? Dear Laughter, JLY meant what he said, and there wasn't really any double meaning in it. He IS intuitive, it IS without any discernable explanation, and he/she DOES need to trust it. It is not about emotional decision making, even though can lead to such.. it's that unidentifiable, yet very real FEEL of every situation. I have no issue here. It got lost because humility really is something that if mentioned - stops being humility, disappears. Well, it may or may not have been about emotional decision making for JLY. Intuition does involve emotion for most folks, and emotion is an entanglement of ideas with sensation. The gut is more immediate, and doesn't involve abstraction at all. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 7:56:58 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. " Reincarnation is a fairytale."
Yes. Who doesn't want to live forever, huh... Anything for a promise. a glimpse of hope no matter how vague. Even if it envolves parading the 'known and knowing' sages... SDP, Niz saw, but was just as much at mercy of the currents of life as anyone. Stop making him into an effigy. Niz makes it very clear that the peep is just an illusion. There's no ambiguity about what he has to say on that issue.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 7:59:35 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1449790836000" class="time" title="Dec 11, 2015 6:40:36 GMT 7">Dec 11, 2015 6:40:36 GMT 7</abbr> laughter said: Sometimes people can directly reveal that they're asleep by insisting that their subjective rejection of an objective fact is just "their world", because there is no "world out there". As Jed wrote in the first book, solopsism is where every philosopher eventually gets stuck, which is why it can be fertile ground. What can be amazing -- and what you're encountering here -- is just how baroque and wending the stories underlying some of those illusions can become, and how attached to them (even a simple and trivial one), peeps can get. The gratitude that rises with the renewal that is the timeless eternity of the moment comes with a beauty that blinds the peep, even the peeps who do feel genuine gratitude from time to time. There do seem to be alot of those, anyway. It's impossible to explain the ordinariness of this, and that's the peep missing simplicity, yet again. What is realized in TR is a commonality between all human beings that is oddly just too immediate for them perceive. It's easy to retreat into this untouchable territory behind 'my world', who could possibly dispute THAT? But WHOSE world is it really? Or even... IS IT?Safe and sound behind the wall, they just don't hear those questions. You'll find them dismissed as "been there done that" mind-play, and in the dismissal the mind play of solipsism is on garish display, but goes completely unnoticed by the one expressing it.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 8:05:12 GMT -5
Well sure sunny I'll step right up and give that a big hug, but dude, I could give half a rats a$$ about bein' "right". As long as we're drawing breath there is some sort of opposition going on, and any time we oppose another person in any way shape or form we've put on the ego suit. It's not possible to shed it completely and play on the screen -- that's just ego in disguise wearing the costume of piety. The only really relevant question is, are we conscious of that as its playing out? Or not? I'll name my ego here as having two parts. One is that since Jed is very unlikely to make an appearance on this thread, I've decided to embrace the conceit that I understand him quite a bit better than you and the others that are in this dialog with our new friend tano. The other is sort of an assumed sense of camaraderie with her. So, can you do the same sunny? Can you name your ego on this thread? Don't worry, if you can't, mine can. Now you're just compounding your first cop-out because all that I need to know about you for what I wrote you've already written. What I know is that you consider that peace doesn't happen until you've opened all your chakras. a soon , as long as one is in the realm of mind, ego will be present and contaminate in some way or other.It happnes with Jed, you,me Tano everyone. I understood Jed as claiming it isnt so.That is one of my objections against him,or rather, his 3 first books.I never read the sequels Well no he's quite honest with his readers about the fact that he's lying to them. as for Peace to happen only after all chakras are opened, i did not mean to say that,i dont recall saying that.The more chakras are open, the more it ´´thickens´´ and expands. maybe we should define Peace before we move on.But i have not the time for that.There may be different ´´levels´´(for want of a better word) of peace.I suspect there are, my experience there are. I was on the way out of the forum,when your comment came.I´ll be back in some weeks or months. the only peace i know of that can not be ´´described in words´´, is trance-like state beyond mind, but that leaves one impotent to act on-in the world, because, to do that, mind is indispensable. so think you misunderstood me. seeya´round peace to all There is a peace available that's always the case, in motion or otherwise, unshakable, unassailable by any conditions, as it is independent of them. There's no way to describe the experience of it, because really, no peep ever knows or experiences it, but it's not simply a rumor or a fable. It is reality itself. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2015 8:23:41 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. " Reincarnation is a fairytale."
Yes. Who doesn't want to live forever, huh... Anything for a promise. a glimpse of hope no matter how vague. Even if it envolves parading the 'known and knowing' sages... SDP, Niz saw, but was just as much at mercy of the currents of life as anyone. Stop making him into an effigy. No, he wasn't. He was way beyond his conditioning, and said so. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2015 8:27:23 GMT -5
" Reincarnation is a fairytale."
Yes. Who doesn't want to live forever, huh... Anything for a promise. a glimpse of hope no matter how vague. Even if it envolves parading the 'known and knowing' sages... SDP, Niz saw, but was just as much at mercy of the currents of life as anyone. Stop making him into an effigy. Niz makes it very clear that the peep is just an illusion. There's no ambiguity about what he has to say on that issue. Niz was once a peep. tbc... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 8:32:43 GMT -5
Niz makes it very clear that the peep is just an illusion. There's no ambiguity about what he has to say on that issue. Niz was once a peep. tbc... No, listen to what he says. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 8:33:13 GMT -5
" Reincarnation is a fairytale."
Yes. Who doesn't want to live forever, huh... Anything for a promise. a glimpse of hope no matter how vague. Even if it envolves parading the 'known and knowing' sages... SDP, Niz saw, but was just as much at mercy of the currents of life as anyone. Stop making him into an effigy. No, he wasn't. He was way beyond his conditioning, and said so. No, he actually said the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2015 8:57:53 GMT -5
........this is the tbc... First, why would I write OTOH SR and OTOH SR if I meant them to be the same? That there was a distinction between two different forms of "SR" was obvious, but you didn't write that one was imaginary and one wasn't. Also, in the first thing your wrote you implied that the difference between the two was the burnt-off karma, but the 2nd time around you write that neither requires karma to be burned up. 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. Wow, you're completely re-writing history. You accosted me with the idea of karma to begin with, and no, it's not accurate to write that "I don't believe in karma", it's just that we have very different ideas about it. And as you yourself put so well, you knew that already before you started the dialog about it. 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~. Look now you're back to using Niz to argue for your ideas about personal reincarnation and I'm sorry, but it's just not there. Niz is very clear on the nature of the person. This morning I woke and realized you think Niz was an ordinary man, he wasn't. I picked up a book by Sir Arthur Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science. (He was the scientist who proved Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity, in 1919 BTW). I flipped to a section where he was discussing the subjectivity of physics, he was telling the story of an ichthyologist who was doing a scientific survey. The (I'll just call him the) icht guy, after concluding his survey he came to two conclusions, there are no fish in the sea smaller than two inches, and all creatures in the sea have gills. Eddington says the catch is equated to the body of scientific knowledge and the net corresponds to the instruments used by science to collect knowledge of the world. Now, an ordinary onlooker seeing the claim of scientist can point out, there are multiple other creatures in the sea, but the net you're using will never catch them. Now, aside, this story comes from Chuang Tzu, I don't know if Eddington read Chuang Tzu or if he independently formulated it. The point is, I saw this morning that you think you are fishing with the same net that Niz is, not true. Niz had a finely woven "net" whereby he captured and talked about many fine details of which he had personal experience, it wasn't just metaphysical speculation (which the scientist accused the onlooker of). I can't help that you will not take Niz at his word. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 9:02:44 GMT -5
........this is the tbc... That there was a distinction between two different forms of "SR" was obvious, but you didn't write that one was imaginary and one wasn't. Also, in the first thing your wrote you implied that the difference between the two was the burnt-off karma, but the 2nd time around you write that neither requires karma to be burned up. Wow, you're completely re-writing history. You accosted me with the idea of karma to begin with, and no, it's not accurate to write that "I don't believe in karma", it's just that we have very different ideas about it. And as you yourself put so well, you knew that already before you started the dialog about it. Look now you're back to using Niz to argue for your ideas about personal reincarnation and I'm sorry, but it's just not there. Niz is very clear on the nature of the person. This morning I woke and realized you think Niz was an ordinary man, he wasn't. I picked up a book by Sir Arthur Eddington, The Philosophy of Physical Science. (He was the scientist who proved Einstein's 1915 General Theory of Relativity, in 1919 BTW). I flipped to a section where he was discussing the subjectivity of physics, he was telling the story of an ichthyologist who was doing a scientific survey. The (I'll just call him the) icht guy, after concluding his survey he came to two conclusions, there are no fish in the sea smaller than two inches, and all creatures in the sea have gills. Eddington says the catch is equated to the body of scientific knowledge and the net corresponds to the instruments used by science to collect knowledge of the world. Now, an ordinary onlooker seeing the claim of scientist can point out, there are multiple other creatures in the sea, but the net you're using will never catch them. Now, aside, this story comes from Chuang Tzu, I don't know if Eddington read Chuang Tzu or if he independently formulated it. The point is, I saw this morning that you think you are fishing with the same net that Niz is, not true. Niz had a finely woven "net" whereby he captured and talked about many fine details of which he had personal experience, it wasn't just metaphysical speculation (which the scientist accused the onlooker of). I can't help that you will not take Niz at his word. I do take Niz at his word that he was the Supreme and the only difference between him and the peeps he was speaking with was their delusion that they were other than that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2015 9:08:05 GMT -5
Niz was once a peep. tbc... No, listen to what he says. Niz wasn't once a peep? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2015 9:13:05 GMT -5
No, listen to what he says. Niz wasn't once a peep? He once was under that delusion, sure. There is no magic transformation that has the ascended one sh!tting rainbows all over the sky. It's just that one moment there is the illusion of peepness, and then, in another, it's gone. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 11, 2015 10:30:08 GMT -5
No, he wasn't. He was way beyond his conditioning, and said so. No, he actually said the exact opposite. Niz: ....In my world it is always fine weather. ...My world is free of thoughts, for there are no desires to slave for. Q: Are there two worlds/ Niz: Your world is transient, changeful. My world is perfect, changeless. You can tell me what you like about your world--I shall listen carefully, even with interest, yet not for a moment shall I forget that your world is not, that you are dreaming. Q: What distinguishes your world from mine? Niz: My world has no characteristics by which it can be identified. You can say nothing about it. I am my world. My world is myself. It is complete and perfect. Every impression is erased, every experience--rejected. I need nothing, not even myself, for myself I cannot lose. ........Niz:...My world is real, while your world is made of dreams. Q: Yet you are talking. Niz: The talk is in your world. In mine--there is eternal silence. My silence sings, my emptiness is full, I lack nothing. You cannot know my world until you are there. I Am That, pages 79,80. My emphasis. I would say Niz is saying he is beyond all his own past peeply conditioning. |
|
