|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 11:59:40 GMT -5
Your mind is what is generating all these posts. That you deny the instrument you use to communicate exists has less to do with personal non existence stuff but your own disconnection with the emotional body. And that's witnessed. What I can say is that there is only Peace. I cannot describe it. I cannot use logic on it. We can have discussions about it for our amusement. Are you here for any other reason than amusement? It passes the time. That's IT? Peace is a very tiny little thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:00:51 GMT -5
What I can say is that there is only Peace. I cannot describe it. I cannot use logic on it. We can have discussions about it for our amusement. Are you here for any other reason than amusement? It passes the time. Apparently I'm here to point out your faulty logic.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:02:25 GMT -5
Yes there's a logical progression of ideas. What of it? But if I say to someone, go within, connect with the silence within, is that logical? You aren't a teacher of truth. You consistently avoid the truth while pretending to embody it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:07:44 GMT -5
If employing logic in a false way is avoidable (cancelling the double negative) then it is not logical to say that saying illogical things is unavoidable if the first statement is always true. Without going back to try to sort it out, you have said something here E didn't say [you are saying E said something he didn't say]. E is correct, you're not. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:13:39 GMT -5
What is aware of experience isn't an experience. What's wrong with you? That's fine. I agree. To say awareness is an experience is just a concession to language because the word experience is interchangeable with knowing in common usage. But I did explain in great detail previously about how an experience requires a subject as knower and object to be known. As awareness is subject only, it is not an experience BUT it is known otherwise no one would talk about it. How do you think it is known? This is just parsing words... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:19:10 GMT -5
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'. Hey, what do you guys think about starting a karma thread? I know it's a radical idea  , but this is an interesting subject. I'd do it, but then it would be a blank first post and I don't think that would generate much activity. Sure. I did that a while back. If I can find it I'll bump it. But even-so, a new thread would be a good idea. Found it, it's called nonduality and exhausting karma, bumped it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:20:28 GMT -5
Hey, what do you guys think about starting a karma thread? I know it's a radical idea , but this is an interesting subject. I'd do it, but then it would be a blank first post and I don't think that would generate much activity. There's not that much going on here with the fab four gone. Why not continue it here? The fab four will be back shortly. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:20:59 GMT -5
There's not that much going on here with the fab four gone. Why not continue it here? Just some crazy idea about using different threads for different topics. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2016 12:28:49 GMT -5
You apparently come here as a teacher and that's whatever. Whatever you're teaching. any logical mind could only learn from you how not to think if you want to be logical.
Saying awareness is self evident is a logical statement. If you can't see that I'd place you at the same level of understanding as a 12 year old at best.
You can't describe awareness because it doesn't appear in awareness. You can describe blue and say it's the same color as the sky or the ocean or the color of someone's eyes. Anyone who has practiced meditation for a long time has no interest in consciousness of dynamics of meditation dynamics because that's the end of the practicer. You embody that beautifully only from some transcendent teacher angle that wouldn't make it 2 minutes into a satsang with me in the seat. With all due respect, you're a tourist.
Okay, I'll continue with my vacation now. This is a generic covering everybody statement. It seems to me that in many cases there ~arrives~ on the scene a conceptual understanding of a certain subject, and that is taken as the final frontier. Or one might get a mere taste of ~something~, which might even go away, but then the person who had the taste thinks that's the end of the journey. I don't know that something similar isn't going on here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:03:25 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. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:09:50 GMT -5
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? Nope.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:12:12 GMT -5
There is no modern day Advaita. It isn't something that evolves. Eternal truths don't change. Well, that used to be true. What changes is culture. Language, mores, habits, forms of expression, what draws peeps attention etc. etc... It's rather fascinating to read the ancient stuff or even material from 30 or 100 years ago to see the same truth expressed through different cultural filters. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:14:11 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. Logic is the language of the dream  Yes, but not the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:17:25 GMT -5
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. Oh yes, but is that all there is goin' on with that??  .. see now, seems to me that it's not only lack of desire to inquire, it's also an affirmative desire to re-wallpaper the bedroom. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2016 14:19:01 GMT -5
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.  Only if you premise "good faith reading" on "reading". Evil frog.  |
|
, but this is an interesting subject. I'd do it, but then it would be a blank first post and I don't think that would generate much activity.
