|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 15:40:21 GMT -5
You're going to lose with that line. Logic is something we all use to communicate. It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. How do you say that no such thing as ego ever existed? Do brains exist? Ego exists as neural connections. Does reincarnation, in some for or other exist? If it does, then something perpetuates from life to life. The modern nondual dudes try to say reincarnation is nonsense, I didn't put you in that camp. Are you in that camp? I think the modern nondual dudes are just putting their head in the sand. To say I am free is one thing. To say I was never bound or never suffering is quite something else. (If there isn't some actual sense of self, then what is suffering?) |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 16:00:05 GMT -5
I read your entire post satch. You started with something that didn't register as true. So I started there. Some time after that you said 'because you take yourself to be a person', and I also responded to that by saying at no point have I implied that either. I wonder if you're the one who's skipping over my points or just ignoring what doesn't fit your conceptual view of the sacred texts. Ironically, you seem to need faulty logic to accomplish that, which is why the conversation ended up with how useless logic is. Which is, btw, a bit of a silly statement, no? What is the matter with you? What conceptual view of sacred texts? Where did that come from. I'm talking about what is experienced. That's all I talk about. How can you say you don't take yourself as a person when you say it seems like the person is not there in samadhi. Who is saying that if not the person? I'm saying memory registers during Samadhi, and the person is the instrument which registers that.
Apart from that, you mentioned Advaita, not two. How much of an influence is Shankara on modern day Advaita? How bout the Gita? I'm actually curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 17:47:18 GMT -5
I'm basically a bum satch, so maybe none of the above. Anyway, the point was just because something seems to be doesn't mean it 'is'. It defeats the whole purpose of using the word 'seems'. If the vacuum salesman at your door is in a clown suit but seems like a nice guy, maybe inviting him in for Sanka and crimpets isn't the best idea. I cannot reply to that because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you just skim through my words without thinking about what you actually experience? It's a waste of time really. Then I don't either, so possibly you weren't clear. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 17:56:48 GMT -5
This: "If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it." seems to be conclusion that I can only assume you believe to be logical. That quote has nothing to do with logic. That was the point.  Yes, I know you're saying it is a seeing beyond mind or whatever, but it's provably not true that if something seems to be a certain way that's because it is. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 18:06:03 GMT -5
Karma doesn't have to play out. There is ~something~ which ~carries~ the karma. What has to be done is ~take the energy out-of~ the karma, (out of the karma-carrying-thingy), that's what ends it. The underlined, that's not the whole of what I said or meant. To E, does this (post of a couple of days ago) help any? (The last post explained [somewhat] how to take the energy out of the karma). Basically, karma is as karma does (this is the hamster wheel). Somewhere along the line one has to cease perpetuating the energy. The only question is how is that accomplished. It doesn't help given my understanding of what karma is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 19:39:35 GMT -5
Ahh yes, more derision, mockery and one-ups-manship.  Does this mean, specifically, that you're including yourself as someone being pushed around by this unseen emotional self that you're saying "I" to in the form of the derision, mockery and one-ups-manship that you continue to reply to me with? Of course ( I already owned that if you didn't notice. But that's no excuse). , not in so many words until now, you didn't own it for what you've been writing to me in reply since here. So now then, are you ready to take a "hint that something is wrong", and that the source of that "wrongness", isn't me? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 19:48:07 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty. Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? If you don't mean what you write to express a logical conclusion you might try avoiding forms of statements along the lines of "if __ it's because __ otherwise __". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 19:51:26 GMT -5
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. I definitely agree that I was not sensitive to its applicable implications. I was just having #funwithlogic using some of the popular concepts I've picked up around here -- effortless, conscious/unconscious. But now I'm an angry villager! Can't wait to use my pitchfork on some monster a$$. My curiosity is also piqued with respect to Lolly's crimes. Seems like he really ruffled some feathers. And if Lolly agrees that what he said is ugly (mirroring or not) then that pretty much makes my pitchfork into a pitchspoon. Drat! BTW, I seldom see the mirroring strategery working. The receiver of the reflection needs to be open and generous for it to work cuz the reflection is almost always heavily tarnished, embellished, and exaggerated.  well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 20:02:27 GMT -5
Conscious discernment isn't always rational. In fact, the rational function of mind will obscure what you're not conscious of. In the converse, yes, of course peeps express conditioned responses reflexively (so that they don't feel like an effort), and in some cases rational examination of that conditioning can be enlightening. Okay just look at the rationale. Doesn't a conscious rationale for a judgement require effort? It might if it involves deliberation, fact-finding or learning about topics relative to the judgment that you're unfamiliar with. Not all rational judgment requires this kind of effort, lots of it is conditioned. For example, if you're on a budget it's a no-brainer to pick the generics from the supermarket shelf, even though there's arithmetic involved. And not every seemingly rational choice is always the result of influences that you're conscious of. If a cop pops his cherries in your rear-view, the rational thing to do is to pull over and comply, but the connection to that complex of your body/mind that involves fear should be obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 20:34:53 GMT -5
I still question the depth of the samadhi I've reached in meditation relative to the experiences you've described of the discontinuous threshold, but what I can say is that there is a similarity of effect between meditation and deep sleep. Both deep sleep and deep meditation are rejuvenating. Both often involve a period of initial disorientation when emerging from them. Also, the body seems to need less sleep when the meditation is done often and deeply. An interesting point of comparison with regard to the question of consciously experiencing either is the sense of time. In both instances, there is a discontinuity on the clock, but in samadhi, there is a memory of a sense of timelessness that I can't say I've ever experienced in dreamless sleep. Why and what for do you use this sanskrit term, samadhi, Laughter? How would you call that in western terminology? What do you mean by "there is a memory of a sense of timelessness in samadhi"? What EXACTLY does that mean, when you say it? Wasn't going to respond to this even though it's an interesting question. Here anja, this is a taste of some of the dialog that's in the archive of this and other threads about the topic. To me there are, generally speaking, two different types of body/mind state differentiated by the factors of whether one is at rest with their eyes closed or in movement with their eyes open, and, secondarily, what can be described as where attention is primarily directed which can be either inward, toward thoughts, emotions and reactions or outward toward sensory perception. The moving states can be very active, and yet, at the same time, free of any and all internal resistance or hesitation, and free of any self-referential thought. There might be what can only be described as emotion, as it involves bodily sensation in reaction to what presents, but it's not really centered on any sense of individualized identity and can only be approximatively described in terms of some of the higher ranges of the scale, and can sound quite deceptive to anyone unfamiliar with this state. The resting states involve a sense of calm and peacefulness that is at the same time alert, and yet not constricted, but rather, expansive, as in an a feeling of spacious embrace. Some people describe this in terms of a falling away of the sense of individual self. I didn't start consciously engaging in these states until well after my sense of personal identity had already been substantially disrupted, so I don't really have a before and after point of reference for that. I can say that there is a falling away of perception as if the sounds are coming from far away down a corridor, and there is an analogous feeling of lightness with respect to the body that isn't a numbness. The sense of timelessness refers to how this state is one that involves an alertness, and that one is conscious of, but can involve such a minimal sense of movement of any sort that there is a void of any focal point for that attention. With no relative points of reference to mark time by, the sense of it evaporates, and yet, awareness remains. After coming out of a state like this that is deep enough, more time will have elapsed than would have been expected. There are many different flavors of each of these types of states, but in either case, attention can be directed inward and the ways in which our attention is hooked by our conditioned interests can become crystal clear, both in the general, and in the specific. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:41:18 GMT -5
What is the matter with you? What conceptual view of sacred texts? Where did that come from. I'm talking about what is experienced. That's all I talk about. How can you say you don't take yourself as a person when you say it seems like the person is not there in samadhi. Who is saying that if not the person? I'm saying memory registers during Samadhi, and the person is the instrument which registers that.
Apart from that, you mentioned Advaita, not two. How much of an influence is Shankara on modern day Advaita? How bout the Gita? I'm actually curious.
There is no modern day Advaita. It isn't something that evolves. Eternal truths don't change. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 20:46:57 GMT -5
I still question the depth of the samadhi I've reached in meditation relative to the experiences you've described of the discontinuous threshold, but what I can say is that there is a similarity of effect between meditation and deep sleep. Both deep sleep and deep meditation are rejuvenating. Both often involve a period of initial disorientation when emerging from them. Also, the body seems to need less sleep when the meditation is done often and deeply. An interesting point of comparison with regard to the question of consciously experiencing either is the sense of time. In both instances, there is a discontinuity on the clock, but in samadhi, there is a memory of a sense of timelessness that I can't say I've ever experienced in dreamless sleep. Maybe you shouldn't meditate when you are sleepy.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:47:33 GMT -5
It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. How do you say that no such thing as ego ever existed? Do brains exist? Ego exists as neural connections. Does reincarnation, in some for or other exist? If it does, then something perpetuates from life to life. The modern nondual dudes try to say reincarnation is nonsense, I didn't put you in that camp. Are you in that camp? I think the modern nondual dudes are just putting their head in the sand. To say I am free is one thing. To say I was never bound or never suffering is quite something else. (If there isn't some actual sense of self, then what is suffering?) You see the snake and discover it is rope. So no such thing as snake ever existed. Ego or the individual I sense doesn't reincarnate. It is impermanent and dies with the body. It is just the vasanas or tendencies that become another ego. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:52:46 GMT -5
Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? If you don't mean what you write to express a logical conclusion you might try avoiding forms of statements along the lines of "if __ it's because __ otherwise __". Statements about what is experienced and statements about cause and effect can be logical as an expression but we don't experience logic. Logic is not a truth we are seeking. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 20:54:38 GMT -5
well I'll do you a nasty-clown one better and opine that the absurd idea that his ugliness was in the eye of the beholder is a product of all that torch-smoke.  Please elaborate. VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? No, but the smoke that wafts from the torches between your field of view of the mob and myself occludes your image of me to the extent that you misread what I've written ... sorta' just like with what ya' wrote right there.  For you to characterize E's characterization of what lolz himself acknowledged was ugly with the idea of the eye of the beholder when you hadn't even read what lolz wrote, involves that same occlusion. Essentially, it's just the Occam's Razor answer as to why you'd do that.  |
|
Does this mean, specifically, that you're including yourself as someone being pushed around by this unseen emotional self that you're saying "I" to in the form of the derision, mockery and one-ups-manship that you continue to reply to me with? 
well, I didn't brand you a villager, but I did suggest that your view was occluded by the torch smoke. Both the lolz narrative and the mob meme are ugly, this much is true, but if you want to compare the two you have to read what he wrote. Did you seem me putting him in stripes? Did I write anything reactive to him?
