|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 23, 2018 11:09:08 GMT -5
Okay, so are you okay when others offer conclusions based on their realizations? Not if they disagree with his. haha yes I think I was having a similar thought. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 11:37:20 GMT -5
So when one person injures another because of anger or jealousy or any number of reasons because of conditioning (illusory "personal" reasons), that's the Whole acting? Absolutely, because there is no "other." So it's OK for the Whole to act through illusions (conditionings) but when the not-SVP acts from conditionings you say it's not the SVP acting, but the Whole. So what's the difference? {You have always maintained before that illusions (the SVP, which is not) cannot act (period) because the SVP is-not}. Take for example a shadow. We know that a shadow cannot act. A shadow *mirrors* ~the action~ of that which it is a shadow OF. Shadow = illusion. Now you are saying, yes, shadows (Illusions) can act. {¿} (I think I just invented and new and better metaphor for the {imaginary}-SVP). So the Whole acts via Truth (what actually IS) AND what-is-not-true (illusions/shadows/what is-not)? {I'm trying to make sense of your paradigm, how "evil" (war, murder, torture, terrorism, child molestation, etc.) comes about, in your paradigm}. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 23, 2018 12:54:49 GMT -5
{I'm trying to make sense of your paradigm, how "evil" (war, murder, torture, terrorism, child molestation, etc.) comes about, in your paradigm}. This is from a fairytale of sorts Alan Watts used to help children understand exactly that. "God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, He has no one but himself to play with. But He gets over this difficulty by pretending that He is not Himself. This is His way of hiding from Himself. He pretends that He is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way He has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when He wakes up they will disappear. " "Now when God plays hide and pretends that He is you and I, He does it so well that it takes Him a long time to remember where and how He hid Himself. But that’s the whole fun of it-just what He wanted to do. He doesn’t want to find Himself out too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be Himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self - the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever. " "You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that He isn’t really doing this to anyone but Himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It’s the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world." |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 23, 2018 13:37:59 GMT -5
Absolutely, because there is no "other." So it's OK for the Whole to act through illusions (conditionings) but when the not-SVP acts from conditionings you say it's not the SVP acting, but the Whole. So what's the difference? {You have always maintained before that illusions (the SVP, which is not) cannot act (period) because the SVP is-not}. Take for example a shadow. We know that a shadow cannot act. A shadow *mirrors* ~the action~ of that which it is a shadow OF. Shadow = illusion. Now you are saying, yes, shadows (Illusions) can act. {¿} (I think I just invented and new and better metaphor for the {imaginary}-SVP). So the Whole acts via Truth (what actually IS) AND what-is-not-true (illusions/shadows/what is-not)? {I'm trying to make sense of your paradigm, how "evil" (war, murder, torture, terrorism, child molestation, etc.) comes about, in your paradigm}. JLY's quote from Watts is a simple way to think about the matter, mythologically. The Whole, in the form of a human, mis-identifies Itself as a finite thing--a SVP. The idea of being a SVP is an idea, only. It's imaginary. Can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest? No, because it's imaginary. The actual body/mind that imagines itself as an SVP acts, and an actual body/mind who doesn't imagine itself as a SVP also acts. Both are conditioned. FWIW, sages don't think in terms of "evil;" they think in terms of "ignorant." Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." It's another way of saying, "They're ignorant." When he said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," he meant that literally because he knew that there is no "other." Whatever we do to another human, we are literally doing to ourself--our True Self. That's because there is only THIS, the Whole. In the movie, "American Beauty," Spacek's character, Lester, lusts after his daughter's sexy friend, but at the end of the movie, he has a sudden shift in perspective, and he no longer sees the young girl as an object for his own personal gratification. An enlightened human becomes more concerned for the welfare of others than for him/herself. Unfortunately, most humans do not have an enlightened perspective, and they're usually very self-centered. Zen Master Seung Sahn, whose command of English was somewhat limited, often said during dharma talks, "Humans are number one bad animal!" I suspect that most of us would agree with him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 13:45:31 GMT -5
Ok. Have you come to understand how, in your direct experience right now, what is known and the knower of what is known are inseparable? In the sense of nondual? Yes, in the sense of there cannot be anything outside of all that is (as ZD says). All THAT is, is ND. But for me there are gradations of levels-of-energy such that the Whole does not effect the individuation, influences are local. To come under influences of (more of) the Whole, the individuation must change, be transformed, develop an (inborn) capacity for receptivity. How can an individuation not already be the Whole, to able to become (more of) it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 17:58:34 GMT -5
In the sense of nondual? Yes, in the sense of there cannot be anything outside of all that is (as ZD says). All THAT is, is ND. But for me there are gradations of levels-of-energy such that the Whole does not effect the individuation, influences are local. To come under influences of (more of) the Whole, the individuation must change, be transformed, develop an (inborn) capacity for receptivity. How can an individuation not already be the Whole, to able to become (more of) it? Do you really want me to explain the cosmology again? :-) Just bumped your answer..... If you follow the cosmology described there are five gaps between our world, and Wholeness (the Absolute, which encompasses everything). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 18:10:30 GMT -5
How can an individuation not already be the Whole, to able to become (more of) it? Do you really want me to explain the cosmology again? :-) Not really, as cosmology indicates an outwards direction. The inner direction reveals that there is no need to be (more of) the Whole than one already is. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 23, 2018 18:24:28 GMT -5
Do you really want me to explain the cosmology again? :-) Not really, as cosmology indicates an outwards direction. The inner direction reveals that there is no need to be (more of) the Whole than one already is. The cosmology is an outer representation of the Whole. It also represents higher dimensions and finer matter (not just the material world). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 18:35:34 GMT -5
Not really, as cosmology indicates an outwards direction. The inner direction reveals that there is no need to be (more of) the Whole than one already is. The cosmology is an outer representation of the Whole. It also represents higher dimensions and finer matter (not just the material world). As I've said the inner direction reveals that there is no need to be (more of) the Whole than one already is. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 23, 2018 23:12:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 24, 2018 4:33:01 GMT -5
Not really, as cosmology indicates an outwards direction. The inner direction reveals that there is no need to be (more of) the Whole than one already is. The cosmology is an outer representation of the Whole. It also represents higher dimensions and finer matter (not just the material world). Cosmology will not lead to the discovery of THIS, or to non-abidance, or to the dissolution of inside/outside, or to transcendental understanding. In fact, it leads in the other direction to more imagination, more complexity, more thinking, and more confusion. For those who want to find the living truth, unlearning, not-knowing, and silence are the way. Which is more important, a representation of the Whole or being Whole? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 24, 2018 6:54:55 GMT -5
The cosmology is an outer representation of the Whole. It also represents higher dimensions and finer matter (not just the material world). Cosmology will not lead to the discovery of THIS, or to non-abidance, or to the dissolution of inside/outside, or to transcendental understanding. In fact, it leads in the other direction to more imagination, more complexity, more thinking, and more confusion. For those who want to find the living truth, unlearning, not-knowing, and silence are the way. Which is more important, a representation of the Whole or being Whole? Right. Truth vs. truthin'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2018 15:31:42 GMT -5
The cosmology is an outer representation of the Whole. It also represents higher dimensions and finer matter (not just the material world). Cosmology will not lead to the discovery of THIS, or to non-abidance, or to the dissolution of inside/outside, or to transcendental understanding. In fact, it leads in the other direction to more imagination, more complexity, more thinking, and more confusion. For those who want to find the living truth, unlearning, not-knowing, and silence are the way. Which is more important, a representation of the Whole or being Whole? What I said was the cosmology is an outer representation of "being Whole" (it's a representation of the journey, meaningless without the actual journey. But that within ~my~ context). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 18:46:40 GMT -5
(Ha ha.) Wait wait wait! In your second sentence you equated the cosmos with THIS. From my POV "the cosmos" is a synonym for THIS, so it includes everything--the seen, the unseen, ideas, feelings, conditioning, etc--the whole shebang. What other actor could there be other than THIS? I don't remember the quote exactly, but in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is reported to have said something like, "I come from the ALL and to the ALL I will return," and "Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift up a stone I and I am there also." His canonical quote, "I and my Father are one" is a pointer to the same thing--the wholeness and infiniteness of THIS. If he hadn't been part of Jewish community with a father-figure deity, he might have said, "I and THIS are one." LOL If we are localized aspects of a Whole, and a movement of the Whole, then whatever is happening is a happening of the Whole, including conditioning and cases of mistaken identity. So when one person injures another because of anger or jealousy or any number of reasons because of conditioning (illusory "personal" reasons), that's the Whole acting? Of course. That's God falling into his own dream. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 24, 2018 19:07:00 GMT -5
I've had woo woo experiences. I don't really talk about them because they're irrelevant. Yeah, so did Marie, in fact me and her spoke about one of hers one time. So I already knew how dominant your view was. When you went to an ER because you were unable to bring your kundalini back to base. Did you also classify that as a 'woo woo experience'? No, that was just energy ravaging my body. |
|
