|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:06:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure of your question. I'm sure you know that the ~something~ consists of samskaras and vasanas. theinstituteofasianarts.com/content/samskaras-vasnasas-karma-or-how-our-past-makes-our-present-and-controls-our-futureBasically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma. More than that, as you said, karma exists down here in la-la land. If one doesn't have to live ~down here~, then karma ceases to be. The trouble is, in-between births, we don't get a choice as to whether to come-back or-not. There is like a special department that handles that. We're just sort of suddenly here. But one can build a body whereby one doesn't have to come back to la-la land. Basically, the energy that would have gone into perpetuating the karma, can be used, must necessarily be used, to build the body, a more subtle body, a body of finer energy. This body is untouched by karma. It's sort of like burning a log. Call the log the samskaras. A finer energy (fire) consumes the log, the fire burns the karmic energy, but in this case the fire does not dissipate (after the fuel is gone), the "fire" remains (the body of finer energy), karma gone. When this happens there is no ~nasty-karmic-energy~ which necessitates re-incarnating. If that doesn't cover the bases, be more specific. So basically, karma is burned through suffering? Do you believe that or is that just what the link says? Some if somebody "delivers" you some bad energy, if you (anybody) can't "retaliate", that is, give back as one is given to, then that's what causes suffering? I don't think so. Ego suffers, yes, but ego is always going to find something to suffer about. While in the midst of suffering, one can find the place/space where there is suffering yet not-suffering. And yes, that "place" burns karma. There is an exquisite joy when whatever life brings, it can't *u** with you. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:09:33 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads".  I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that.  I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. OK, thanks. ( edit: glad to see my recollection is confirmed. ....... I learned, pretty-much too late, that when my former wife thought she could fix anything by later saying, Oh...that was a joke, it was really verbal abuse (IOW, it wasn't a joke). Not implying anything, just stating a fact. I, BTW, to myself, called her Xanthippe. I've never told anybody that. sdp pauses before posting...posts anyway...). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:12:00 GMT -5
I think alot of peeps won't recognize themselves in what you're writing because the rejection seems to them like an embrace of what they believe and feel themselves to be. Yea the seeker isn't interested in being conscious of the dynamics of seeking. Yes, but that's like baking a cake and leaving out the sugar. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:19:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure of your question. I'm sure you know that the ~something~ consists of samskaras and vasanas. theinstituteofasianarts.com/content/samskaras-vasnasas-karma-or-how-our-past-makes-our-present-and-controls-our-futureBasically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma. More than that, as you said, karma exists down here in la-la land. If one doesn't have to live ~down here~, then karma ceases to be. The trouble is, in-between births, we don't get a choice as to whether to come-back or-not. There is like a special department that handles that. We're just sort of suddenly here. But one can build a body whereby one doesn't have to come back to la-la land. Basically, the energy that would have gone into perpetuating the karma, can be used, must necessarily be used, to build the body, a more subtle body, a body of finer energy. This body is untouched by karma. It's sort of like burning a log. Call the log the samskaras. A finer energy (fire) consumes the log, the fire burns the karmic energy, but in this case the fire does not dissipate (after the fuel is gone), the "fire" remains (the body of finer energy), karma gone. When this happens there is no ~nasty-karmic-energy~ which necessitates re-incarnating. If that doesn't cover the bases, be more specific. Here is a video where James is talking about reincarnation and how it works as seen by old-school advaita-vedanta. It's about 20 minutes long and worth a watch, I think. It also would be a good starting-point for discussing karma, what kinds of karma there are, what vasanas and samkaras are and how what James calls "being enlightened" is related to these topics. I don't agree fully with everything James says and teaches but that does not keep me from learning at lot from him and his presense here in la-la-land. I think comparing notes is what would be interesting, and if we are able and willing to stay on topic, without interferece of "ganging up" against each other for the sake of finding flaws in our personalities, which we all have, we all here could have a fruitfull conversation. Reincarnation and Advaita Vedanta - by James Swartz : www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXWXJhifBsI(Watch out for the bird in the background)  OK, thanks. I have three of Swartz' books, I like him a lot (have read most of the 2nd [(which is) sort-of the first, I had to look for an earlier book], great chunks of the other two). He is 'old school' Vedanta, which I basically have few problems with. I will view it as time permits (maybe tomorrow). Have never heard him. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:25:48 GMT -5
here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was in response to Lolly's comment that I should stop trying to make him look ugly. It doesn't imply that there was no conscious discernment or rationale involved. sdp drops jaw.....or rather, jaw drops. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:39:52 GMT -5
So, that's your enigma impression, you know me better than I know myself? Yes, I just recently wrote a To Whom It May Concern generic post, that what we write reveals more about ourselves, than the person we have written about. And yes, that includes me. Did you ever play Pin the Tail on the Donkey as a kid? I think you missed, try again. That's a generalization that's not always true. Imagine an insightful psychologist and an 'unconscious' patient, or even a mother and child. If you mean just on this forum, I would suggest you can't know that. Just today I read a Ramana quote which says that some of the things he says are merely a reflection of the people surrounding him, and thus not strictly true. That's pretty mind blowing if you're a Ramana fan. I don't have it with me presently, but I'll edit this post and include it. But yes, some people can be objective and can shed light on other people's words. Saying at the risk of having to pull (fill in the blank) out of my be-hind, you're not one of them. Edit: "The Sage's pure mind which beholds as a mere witness the whole world is like a mirror which reflects the foolish thoughts of those who come before him. And these thoughts are then mistaken to be his". Ramana Maharshi |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:43:38 GMT -5
First she mistakenly thought I may be asking her for help or that I was teaching her. Then she mistakenly thought that I was shifting to generalities, and proceeded to show that my previous comments were personal. Then she mistakenly thought I was was saying it's hard for me to be agreeable. Then she mistakenly concluded that I was insisting my a$$essment of her emotional state trumps hers. Then she expressed her concern about labeling and level playing fields and positioning oneself as superior. (referring to me) There is a subtext to all of that, and I don't know if that's the 'good faith' reading you are looking for or not. There is a literal interpretation and then there is my perception of WIBIGO. Then I'll have to go back and read what you wrote, because I read you as saying exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:45:05 GMT -5
I don't feel the need to go back and see if you are right or if I am right. I read stuff quickly a lot of the time, most times only once. I will stick with my first impression, I welcome quinn to correct me if necessary. My point was that your "impression" was not "what she said". You don't really need her to confirm or deny that, just read what she said. I'll read what you said. (She already replied to me, earlier post). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:46:59 GMT -5
You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads". I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that. I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. Did I say you're unaware of something? I don't recall it.This is the drum-roll post. ..... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:47:55 GMT -5
Did I say you're unaware of something? I don't recall it. Did I mis-read this? " your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't.  " (I bolded the part I'm referring to.) BINGO! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2016 19:50:21 GMT -5
Did I mis-read this? " your comments don't reflect what she actually said, even if it may have been what she think/feels. She'll likely call you on that, which is something I know about her that she doesn't. " (I bolded the part I'm referring to.) , all of which have been going over like lead balloons lately. Thank God for open mike night. I need the practice.  Is that your best D Trump impression? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:13:32 GMT -5
So basically, karma is burned through suffering? Do you believe that or is that just what the link says? Some if somebody "delivers" you some bad energy, if you (anybody) can't "retaliate", that is, give back as one is given to, then that's what causes suffering? I don't think so. Ego suffers, yes, but ego is always going to find something to suffer about. While in the midst of suffering, one can find the place/space where there is suffering yet not-suffering. And yes, that "place" burns karma. There is an exquisite joy when whatever life brings, it can't *u** with you. Oh, when you say "don't preform actions" you mean don't retaliate? If so, I'll simply disagree that this burns karma, which likely comes down to how I see karma as opposed to how you see it. I don't see karma as punishment for bad behavior such that sucking it up and taking whatcha got comin will change anything. Is that how you see karma or am I way off base? I see karma as the need to resolve ignorance for one's own peace of mind. This requires clarity, which often comes in the form of challenging experiences. However, it doesn't have to, as clarity is not tied to experience. And actually neither clarity nor ignorance is tied to action. Action is irrelevant in those terms, as action is simply an expression of what one is being, and what one is being is what must change for karma to 'burn'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 20:15:10 GMT -5
That's up to you. What drew and kept my interest were your positions here and here. I read everything lolz wrote quite carefully and replied to the extent I had interest culminating here. here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? Depends on what you mean by problem. I follow the logic but I don't buy the premise, and it also isn't really applicable to the text that it was in response to. This 2nd point about applicability being a narrow legalistic one, but important in this instance because of how it changes the meaning of that text and radically so. I don't think you're sensitive to how what you wrote did that and I'll be glad to explain exactly what I mean by it but only if you express interest. I didn't respond to it that way, this much is true, I took it seriously. My interest was in the idea that the ugliness of what lolz portrayed was in the eye of the beholder. I'm not and haven't yet neglected the factor of subjectivity, but my interest has been on the possible objective consensus on this point. I'm pretty sure that lolz would agree that what he was portraying was ugly, and all you have to do to make the leap to calling lolz ugly from there is to put yourself in the shoes of the one so portrayed by what lolz wrote. But in order to hang with me in that dialog you'd really have to read this latest version of the portrayal, as it's definitely ratcheted up a few notches from the one's you say you've read previously. Now you see, I don't see a problem in any of this, all the way around the table, and I think I already made that clear in terms of what I wrote to lolz directly. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2016 20:25:37 GMT -5
here#1 ...Well the 'ugliness is in the eye of the beholder' comment is a riff off its beauty cousin. And to deem one ugly in an effortless way also implies that there was no conscious rationale behind the judgement, which would mean that it is unconscious. In general, do you see the logic there? This post could be labeled a puerile poke from one prone to immaturity. here#2 ...I had gotten a gist of what Lolly had written previously concerning power dynamics and communication but was not up to speed on what he had written recently. When I said "I haven't been following carefully" I was referring to not being well-read on the the entirety of what he wrote. Then I summarized the gist I had gleaned from previous writings. here#3 ...I hadn't read that til just now. Seems level-headed to me. So what is the problem? This is what I call flawful logic, resulting from too much biased analysis. My comment that it was effortless was i n response to Lolly's comment that I should stop trying to make him look ugly. It doesn't imply that there was no conscious discernment or rationale involved. Yes, it's a subtle change in what was exchanged between you and lolz but it's one with a chasm of meaning. maxy's link between "no conscious rationale" and "unconsciousness" is an interesting one that could fuel many pages of deep thoughts and debate, and to his credit he did equivocate the connection with effortlessness by the idea of implication.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2016 20:30:50 GMT -5
You got the gist of it right, as long as you exchange !@#$%^& for "Egads". I don't know what E's talking about that I'm unaware of. Calling out people for unflattering generalizations of females? I hope he doesn't think I don't know I do that. I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation. OK, thanks. ( edit: glad to see my recollection is confirmed. ....... I learned, pretty-much too late, that when my former wife thought she could fix anything by later saying, Oh...that was a joke, it was really verbal abuse (IOW, it wasn't a joke). Not implying anything, just stating a fact. I, BTW, to myself, called her Xanthippe. I've never told anybody that. sdp pauses before posting...posts anyway...). You're not implying that I'm lying about my joke? Then why did you come back 8 hours later and add that comment to your post after reading mine? Lolly is going to want to have a word with you about your sniping from the bushes.  |
|
I also let a lot pass. Energy conservation.
" (I bolded the part I'm referring to.)
