|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 11:10:42 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. It's just that the discussion kind of ends when it comes to "I've seen it so it's true". I'll leave it and let it die a natural death.  By the way - I've been doing some research on this objective/external world vs subjective/no-external question. The impetus being my question about how important this is in terms of non-duality, enlightenment, truth-seeking. Found out this debate has been going on for centuries in the various schools of Buddhism! This is from one interesting text: Those who refute an external reality are called Vijnanavadin Buddhists and they were correct insofar as the argument was used to refute the realist. But then the Vijnanavadin is also disputed by saying that apparent changes internally are false, that there is only one external consciousness. "Thus the Vedantin can sit back and watch his opponents defeat each other, leaving the field free for him to occupy without a struggle...By saying "Let this be so!", we simply approve the birthlessness revealed by them...we do not quarrel with them. Thus non-duality (advaita) is a philosophy without dispute (avivada)." It's also a major thread of Western Philosophical thought stretching back at least 2500 years. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 11:12:26 GMT -5
Yes, individual responsibility is a useful idea, but there is also the recognition that their context was such that there wasn't any other choice available. In the case of Hitler, it is really quite obvious that he thought he was doing the right thing. I take individual responsibility by recognizing my role in creating these expressions, so I heal the Hitler and Charles within me.
That's just nonsense. Sure, Hitler thought he was doing right, but what does that have to do with anything? All this is why non-volition is nonsense. A human being is a point of decision, a maker of decisions, that's what a human being is. We are here to learn to make good decisions, and for that accountability is necessary, for that karma is necessary. Life is a school. The idea of non-volition removes accountability. The earth is in pretty bad shape right now, ecologically and psychologically. But it's not because it's inevitable because of the natural flow of All That Is. It's because people fork up. Charlie and Hitler get healed by changing, by ceasing to be what they are. But yes, we all have to clean up our own stuff. But this is not easy. It is very easy to go with the flow. It's not so easy to go against the flow of the nasty stuff in ourselves and the nasty stuff in the world. To say it's all just a flow is to escape our responsibility, but yes, "We are the World", but that doesn't remove our accountability. You would reject any teaching/philosophy/model that doesn't allow for accountability and responsibility on the basis that these are needed to fix the world. In this, there's little or no interest in what's actually true. Okay, fair enough, but what if in the end the truth is the only thing that works, whether you can see how that could happen at this point or not? Would that change your mind, do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2016 11:12:52 GMT -5
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. Where did you get this idea? Already spoken to. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 11:13:57 GMT -5
So if you're saying that there is a context where Assad, Charlie and Adolph are perfect you're saying there is a context where these individuals are free of mistake, error and have done nothing wrong. The perfection of your being, as is and was theirs, is untouched by our judgments of right or wrong, and unblemished by their actions. It's true that you'll never make sense of that, because the perfection I'm referring to isn't conditional or dependent on or even related to conditions at all. Yes, it's a pointer. Yes there is a context in which it is impossible for anyone or anything, to be, or make, a mistake/error. I would say the simple seeing that no one chooses his desires/interests should bring that into clear focus. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 23, 2016 11:17:52 GMT -5
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.  . (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. Yes, that was clear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:20:56 GMT -5
You don't understand "Wholeness, Oneness, One" then. I don't understand your concept of Wholeness. You don't need to understand a concept, just don't conceptually self-identify with it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:34:03 GMT -5
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.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:37:20 GMT -5
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. So Augustine developed the idea of Original sin? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:38:22 GMT -5
Where did you get this idea? Already spoken to. Already seen that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 11:43:12 GMT -5
You said "Asking someone about their nightly dream assumes they have an individual mind." I'm saying no, it doesn't, and I explained why. It does assume that and you didn't explain why. It's like asking someone what they had for dinner...you're assuming that there is a someone that had dinner. It's not complicated. Really, it's not. A dream character is an image in your mind. No more. That image doesn't have it's own brain.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 11:44:42 GMT -5
That's what I would say too. So the appearance of Andrew also has the appearance of an as.s even though you can't see it hehe If it doesn't appear, then it's not an appearance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:52:10 GMT -5
It does assume that and you didn't explain why. It's like asking someone what they had for dinner...you're assuming that there is a someone that had dinner. It's not complicated. Really, it's not. A dream character is an image in your mind. No more. That image doesn't have it's own brain. There can't be more simple explanation than this. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 11:54:01 GMT -5
Okay, lemme try again. Gopal has not been laying out a complete model of how the universe works and how to deal with suffering, at least not here. He's saying everything is an appearance in Consciousness. That's all. No high falutin all embracing model. With me so far? When you call that the Gopal model, you implicitly expect that model to address all pertinent issues, including the issue of suffering. You then ask why his 'model' doesn't address the issue of suffering, and call it inadequate. Still with me? I'm saying the problem isn't that Gopal's 'model' is inadequate, it's that you've chosen to call a simple pointer a model. This is a good explanation but a) gopal never uses pointers, and b) I have been getting the impression that his model is all embracing. If I ask him what model he is using when we talk about suffering, you think he will tell me? A) Gopal points all the time. What he doesn't seem to use is the word. Did that make you think he wasn't trying to point to something? B) Gopal has a very involved model, but he's not presenting his model for you review, he's pointing at one simple truth in one context. (Everything is an appearance in Consciousness) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2016 11:55:36 GMT -5
Loaded question is one that contains assumption or is charged with an implication. I guess it was more of a leading question, though it did seem to assume I missed the point. The other thing is, if missing your point implies 'just like Andy', what does it mean in this social clime to be associated as 'like Andy'? I'm sure it means something wonderful hehe Apparently it means one is self deluded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 11:56:02 GMT -5
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). Me thinks you can name on one hand which of your books you have read all the way to the end.  |
|
