|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 21:02:25 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 __". Zactamentally.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2016 21:10:38 GMT -5
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. If you meant to say the sentence in question didn't express any logic I understand, and if that's the case it's a great example of something that isn't what it seems to be. Otherwise, as you obviously don't see yourself as either a mathematician, philosopher or seeker, it seems that logical expressions apparently aren't limited to one of those three groups after all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 21:18:10 GMT -5
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. If you meant to say the sentence in question didn't express any logic I understand, and if that's the case it's a great example of something that isn't what it seems to be. Otherwise, as you obviously don't see yourself as either a mathematician, philosopher or seeker, it seems that logical expressions apparently aren't limited to one of those three groups after all. A mathematician proves a truth with logic. Do you think you can use the same approach to discover your true nature? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 21:52:26 GMT -5
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. Well, that used to be true.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 22:04:15 GMT -5
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?) 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. That's true, but if we define ego as a dynamic of self referential thought instead of an entity, then that set of thoughts does exist in a way that the snake does not. I agree that nothing that we refer to as the person or ego reincarnates. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 22:09:15 GMT -5
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. Eternal truths aren't premised in faulty logic. Only satch, from his own experience seems to be true but logically cannot be, truths, don't seem to evolve. Maybe they will one day. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 22:10:49 GMT -5
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. Logic is the language of the dream  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 22:12:36 GMT -5
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. That's true, but if we define ego as a dynamic of self referential thought instead of an entity, then that set of thoughts does exist in a way that the snake does not. I agree that nothing that we refer to as the person or ego reincarnates. That's a good point. What I really mean is that in a state of ignorance it is MY ego. But after realising you are not the body then what arises as I and thoughts is no longer my ego. The possessive I disappears. That is destruction of mind which you had difficulty accepting, but to be fair I probably didn't express it very well. Clearly mind is still required to know how to use a knife and fork. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 22:13:51 GMT -5
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. If you meant to say the sentence in question didn't express any logic I understand, and if that's the case it's a great example of something that isn't what it seems to be. Otherwise, as you obviously don't see yourself as either a mathematician, philosopher or seeker, it seems that logical expressions apparently aren't limited to one of those three groups after all. If 'what is' equals 'what seems to be' within the parameters of someone's thinking, I'd say there is a pre-existing biased toward lack of desire into inquiring into one's own faulty logic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 22:14:01 GMT -5
There is no modern day Advaita. It isn't something that evolves. Eternal truths don't change. Eternal truths aren't premised in faulty logic. Only satch, from his own experience seems to be true but logically cannot be, truths, don't seem to evolve. Maybe they will one day. Who knows.
I am all there is. There is no other truth. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 22:15:50 GMT -5
Eternal truths aren't premised in faulty logic. Only satch, from his own experience seems to be true but logically cannot be, truths, don't seem to evolve. Maybe they will one day. Who knows.
I am all there is. There is no other truth. Your mind is using faulty logic because you are unconscious of the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 22:17:28 GMT -5
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. The problem is that you actually employed logic in your statement. It didn't just happen to sound logical. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 22:20:10 GMT -5
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.  It sounds like it lacked a good faith reading on Max's part.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 22:23:45 GMT -5
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. If you meant to say the sentence in question didn't express any logic I understand, and if that's the case it's a great example of something that isn't what it seems to be. Otherwise, as you obviously don't see yourself as either a mathematician, philosopher or seeker, it seems that logical expressions apparently aren't limited to one of those three groups after all. It sure quacked like a duck to me.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 22:26:23 GMT -5
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. The problem is that you actually employed logic in your statement. It didn't just happen to sound logical. Yes that is a problem which is why we need to be silent. |
|
