|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 9:59:46 GMT -5
But our discussion wasn't about our opinions of peeps like Assad, Buddha, Charlie Manson and Tolle. I wrote about that already. Twice: In understanding this, we have to remain cognizant of our own conditioned opinions. The conflict in Syria is complex and multi-faceted, and most peeps with their hands on weapons who are willing to pull the trigger -- on whatever side -- are all quite convinced in one way or another of the righteousness of their story. On one hand, cultivating dispassion is advice that Advaita and Zen teachers have been advising for thousands of years now. This advice is often misread by the Western eye as the moral relativism which would equate a rapist with the good samaritan that would disrupt the act of rape. Just like you did here. [/i]. [/quote] This recently came up with E, only later considered this reply, so it's for him also. I thought that was the meaning of E's little greasy spot. Yes? No? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 10:03:59 GMT -5
No, I browsed through that (I usually browse through nonsense), but I think it was andrew who equated. I posted, you didn't address my post, I posted back (above). I'm not that much interested....... There was another shooting of a black man, yesterday afternoon in Charlotte, near UNCC. By 11:00 PM last night 1,000 people were marching in the street, made national news. I-85 was blocked for a while, stuff off a tractor-trailer set fire. Messy. A (young) black police officer killed a black man. 12 policemen were injured. These events are not equivalent to the sermon on the mount. You didn't address my first question, and you're directing your objections about this to the wrong party on the thread.  OK, I don't know what you were saying in the first place. But catching some of your discussion with Andrew on Charlie and Hitler, I don't think I have a problem with your view, sdp and L are closer on this subject than andrew and sdp. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 23, 2016 10:05:04 GMT -5
Ok but you can be conscious of a compartmentalized identity. I'm saying a non-figment point of perception person thingy can have its experienced divided between conscious and unconscious. Conscious memory and unconscious memory. Some of the unconscious memory can be associated with feelings, and these feelings can lead to unconscious behavior, most noticed as a split mind oriented to prevent unconscious feelings being brought to the light of consciousness.
This doesn't make anybody anything other than consciousness, and it does not imply more than one consciousness. Figments, real, one point of perception, or 7 billion, it doesn't matter, becoming unconscious can happen in all these models of experience, allowing unconscious forces to influence the creation at the point of perception. People really are scared of things like sadness, death, intimacy, and these fears can 'unconsciously' influence decisions without the individual realizing what's taking place, without 'consciousness' of the forces.
I don't think so. Consciousness always works in certain order. In my view Unconscious is, there is certain pattern continue to happen without our awareness. For an example, we always reject certain person from our life, but we never know that this rejection is what creates the connection with that person. Once this unconscious become conscious, then that particular individual who is the cause of your rejection would move away. You keep talking about this attractive/repulsive dynamic which is exterior to you. That dynamic really can be witnessed in your experience, and I don't mean to discount that.
I'm saying if someone has a fear of public speaking, and they are unconscious of that fear, they would find themselves 'unconsciously' avoiding jobs and roles which involve public speaking. If that fear can be linked to an underlying experience of the conditioned person, like a teacher from elementary school who used public shaming/embarrassment to punish the child or 'correct' behavior, the 'unconscious avoidance' of energy linked to that experience could be the 'cause' of the fear of public speaking. Making that emotion conscious would lead to the absence of the fear, and could also lead to a more fulfilling life. There really is a benefit to healing the split mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 23, 2016 10:13:49 GMT -5
The period is integral to expression of the equation.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 10:15:13 GMT -5
I don't think so. Consciousness always works in certain order. In my view Unconscious is, there is certain pattern continue to happen without our awareness. For an example, we always reject certain person from our life, but we never know that this rejection is what creates the connection with that person. Once this unconscious become conscious, then that particular individual who is the cause of your rejection would move away. You keep talking about this attractive/repulsive dynamic which is exterior to you. That dynamic really can be witnessed in your experience, and I don't mean to discount that.
I'm saying if someone has a fear of public speaking, and they are unconscious of that fear, they would find themselves 'unconsciously' avoiding jobs and roles which involve public speaking. If that fear can be linked to an underlying experience of the conditioned person, like a teacher from elementary school who used public shaming/embarrassment to punish the child or 'correct' behavior, the 'unconscious avoidance' of energy linked to that experience could be the 'cause' of the fear of public speaking. Making that emotion conscious would lead to the absence of the fear, and could also lead to a more fulfilling life. There really is a benefit to healing the split mind.
Ok |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 10:27:11 GMT -5
Have it, read most of it, I'll browse it when I get back home. Agree, but I don't know what you are referencing by the two infinities. The two infinities are the known and the unknown. Heisenberg addresses it in terms of a fallacious interpretation of the discovery of the limits of objective physical measurement in terms of a limit on human knowledge about nature. I'm going to have to agree with lolly on this. It has nothing to do with the limitations of human knowledge. Measurement is ~extracting~ an unnatural state out-of the quantum state. Take an electron for example. The ~natural~ state of an electron is as a kind of cloud surrounding the nucleus. It doesn't exist at a particular ~place~ or have a particular momentum. It in a very real sense exists many places simultaneously, this is its inherent nature. So, making a measurement of the electron (which, again, is a kind of cloud) is not possible in it's natural state, it's not a human failure of technology or other reasons. An analogy, an electron is like a horse race, very fast horse, impossibly fast horse. A location measurement is like taking a picture as-in a photo finish. We are freezing the electron into an unnatural state. Likewise, when we make a momentum measurement, we are measuring its "speed". We can only do one or the other, never both simultaneously. If we measure location, it obliterates momentum. If we measure momentum, that obliterates location. A measurement creates an unnatural state. (We can only know the natural quantum state as a probability). Making a measurement is collapsing the wave function. All this directly has a bearing on our ongoing measurement discussion. You say that consciousness is needed (the Copenhagen interpretation) to create physical reality (situations), that consciousness is what collapses the wave function thus changing a quantum state to a classical state. Consider the above in relation to that. (Consciousness is not needed, Wigner's friend is a nonissue). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 10:31:15 GMT -5
Yes, seems you read my mind or I read your mind (see post above). I read the first Neal Donald Walsh book until he started some nonsense about Hitler. I closed the book and have not read another word by Neal Donald Walsh. Albert Low at least has an excuse to talk about Hitler having lived through it, and his coverage (in the Iron Cow) is far more nuanced. As I recall, he uses him as an example of an extreme and a way to examine our conditioned sense of right and wrong without excusing the result. Ironic of course that we've started discussing Heisenberg in parallel and independently. OK, I like Albert Low, he's about the most sane person I've come across. I have Iron Cow, but have not read all of it. I'll check that out, sounds interesting (and sane). (But I will not be home again until Saturday). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 10:36:09 GMT -5
One reason I'm not a non-dualist. Did you misread that or would you argue for the equality of Tolle and Manson? The dialog started based on the pointer of perfection, so we could debate what " inherent fundamental equality" means and how that relates if you'd like.  arguing against the fundamental equality of Charlie and Tolle. (figgles said it's hard to think anyone here would do that, I hate this structure where you only go back two posts in copying). No, I do not argue for the equality of Tolle and Manson. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 10:44:36 GMT -5
When andy states that there is a context where they are equals he's not really stating a position based on a nondual pointer. He's making a statement from a position of confusing the relative and the absolute. To say that Charlie Manson did what he did based on delusion because the perfection of his true nature was obscured from him by personal identification, would be a nondual pointer. This is where my view of the world clashes with almost everybody else here. For me, Charlie doesn't exist in an absolute sense. (After his experience described in the PON, Tolle might then exist in an absolute sense, I don't have a problem saying that to make the distinction). I've somewhat started discussing this on the as above so below thread. In my view, Tolle has moved toward the Absolute, Manson has not, so Manson does not exist in any absolute sense (not as identity. This is the meaning Of: Life Is Real, Only Then When I Am. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 10:53:18 GMT -5
Yeah..? You don't see a fundamental Godliness/divinity inherent in every individuated being...regardless of their behavior? No. My paradigm, briefly. Yes, Source, Life, Absolute, God, Wholeness, Oneness, One, exists in everyone, in all things, as Ground, but not in the sense of Identity. Charlie or Hitler could not exist without this Source. A human being is a ~mixture~ of this Ground, planted in a body. So a human being is ~partly~ Source, partly "dirt". Humans are here to choose to move toward Source and Life, or not. A human being's identity comes-from the ~mixing~. There isn't a real union with Divinity until and when that is chosen. If and when that should occur, in an instance of a Charlie or a Hitler, then Charlie would no longer be Charlie and Hitler would no longer be Hitler. This is why I am adamantly not a non-dualist. (But that's as brief as I can be). You don't understand "Wholeness, Oneness, One" then. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 10:58:44 GMT -5
Well, if by sacred you mean suspension of judgment you're reverting back to your position from several days ago that there's a context where the murderer and the healer are equals and equated. As I mentioned here and here, several of the ancient spiritual traditions advise cultivating non-judgment and this expresses itself in the new-age and contemporary echo-chambers for sure. This is because someone who hasn't realized what's pointed to by the unchanging absolute subject that is the perfection that they are will always have that obscured by the natural functioning of their mind. The advice is intended to invite you to a state of mental and emotional quiescence. But just because you suspend judgment of Assad doesn't magically transform him into the Buddha. That's the wishful bypassing of the Brown Bear. I've already said, if anything, the absence of judgement is suspended in order to judge. Absence of judgement is fundamental to me, my leaning is to say all human beings as equally sacred and 'of God', but I judge because it is the useful thing to do at times. 'Cultivating' non-judgement isn't what I am suggesting. I am saying that there is a natural state of no judgement. I am hoping E might jump in here....I'm pretty sure he would say there is indeed a context where the inherent innocence of every person, regardless of behavior can be seen. Funny how the message is often more palatable depending upon who is delivering it. We'll have to see though....it's that 'buddies don't usually like to debate buddies' kinda thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 10:59:49 GMT -5
OK, sorry, using to many words (Source = Ground [of Being]). Picture three levels (the famous three-layer cake). Top layer, Source. Bottom layer, the physical universe, which includes physical bodies. Source is ~planted~ in a physical body (conception occurs). A human being is born. The human being is not wholly Source (God), not wholly physical (an animal). A human being is a third ~thingy~/being with its own identity. The identity of a human being does not equate to God/Source. One other way that evil can be seen. Those that demonstrate the most evil, and most intensity of ego-separation, are giving humanity the contrast so that we can move towards love. Another example of this... in this day and age, the exacerbation of ridiculous warfare is pushing humans to KNOW that they want peace. Sometimes intense contrast can encourage us to look closely at our values and what truly matters to us. In this sense, evil can be seen to be a gift to humanity...it says...'is this what you really want??!!' Keep that up and you might accidentally understand duality. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 11:00:55 GMT -5
So you wouldn't have condemned Hitler as he was building the gas chambers? How about during Nuremberg? How about today?  The Christians really said it quite well, love the sinner hate the sin. That you are declaring Adolf and Charlie innocent is simple confusion between the absolute and the relative. I would have condemned him then, and now, because it is useful to do so. Judgement is a tool, it's not a reality. The reality is innocence. Yes, precisely. The idea that just because I can see from a place that levels the playing field, rendering every human innocent, despite their actions, surely does not mean that I cannot also see from a place that has me judging their behavior....and even condemning it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 11:04:21 GMT -5
Yes, exactly. The biggest reason I left the Protestant (Baptist) church in my 20's, really teens (all the nonsense about original sin). Original sin isn't a statement about your humanity, it's a statement about our culture and how our genetics have intertwined with that culture. A "nondualist" would say that it's not a statement about what you really are, but instead a statement about what everyone is conditioned into expressing in the course of their lives. You obviously didn't grow up Southern Baptist. Christianity today has become so twisted it is pretty insane. Yes, the Western church teaches we are depraved from birth (Calvin). It teaches we have in some genetic kind of sense inherited the sin of Adam and are automatically born separated from God. So yes, from the Western church perspective, Original sin is about humanity. This goes all the way back to Augustine. Augustine didn't read Greek, so he read a Latin translation of the Greek. One single word was translated wrong, and from this Augustine devised Original sin as the (Western) church teaches it. When a kid growing up I heard many times, the only place God does not exist is in the heart of a lost person. So you can see what nonsense I've had to overcome. Pelagius debated Augustine on this subject, Pelagius lost. If the church had accepted what Pelagius taught the world would be much different today. Pelagius was a Celtic Christian. The Celtic Church taught we are born innocent, but become separated from God when we sin. This is also the view of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (this is why I said the Western church above). EO theologians teach we do not inherit the guilt of Adam, but we inherit the consequences of Adan's sin. So what you say is essentially the EO church's view. (IOW, original sin, in the true sense of the Word, is in the meme sense, not the gene sense). Also, Judaism never developed Augustine's sense of Original sin. He was just flat out wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 11:05:31 GMT -5
No. My paradigm, briefly. Yes, Source, Life, Absolute, God, Wholeness, Oneness, One, exists in everyone, in all things, as Ground, but not in the sense of Identity. Charlie or Hitler could not exist without this Source. A human being is a ~mixture~ of this Ground, planted in a body. So a human being is ~partly~ Source, partly "dirt". Humans are here to choose to move toward Source and Life, or not. A human being's identity comes-from the ~mixing~. There isn't a real union with Divinity until and when that is chosen. If and when that should occur, in an instance of a Charlie or a Hitler, then Charlie would no longer be Charlie and Hitler would no longer be Hitler. This is why I am adamantly not a non-dualist. (But that's as brief as I can be). You don't understand "Wholeness, Oneness, One" then. I don't understand your concept of Wholeness. |
|
