|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 18:25:04 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2016 18:25:04 GMT -5
My conversation with you was about self evident experience, Was it, i did not see enough verbal expression that i could process in order to make that distinction, though i was aware 'self evident experience' was part of your thoughts of our conversation. What i did notice was you stating, 'a self evident truth requires no proof' and you gave up discussing the matter any further after i shared how that seems illogical due to the term 'evident' means having actual or a personal judgement that oneself has adequate proof to label something a truth. Evident-evidence-proof...to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact. And for reasons not disclosed, you did not like that information and chose to cease the exploration. but what got in the way was a discussion about definitions. You express many thoughts, many definitions, taking the time to explain your mental reasoning behind your statements, but will accuse others of doing this and that doing so is a hindrance to the conversation. I think what discouraged you and you chose to not be bothered anymore, was you couldn't argue against my thoughts, that my thoughts rendered yours incorrect, fully or partially. When you say "to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact", I'm guessing most would respond along the lines of 'Whoa! He's my brother, but it's a long and winding road back to sanity from here, and I haven't packed nearly enough clean socks and underwear for the journey. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 20:12:18 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Aug 31, 2016 20:12:18 GMT -5
You make an excellent point, with which I am in full agreement. I just don't seem to be able to help it, though. Maybe it's an ego thing, that I get an unspeakable amount of joy seeing someone be fundamentally relieved of the energy draining burden of seeking. That's why I watch so much non-dual satsang q&a stuff on youtube. I love it. : ) , but I think you know what to do to answer that for yourself.  Any recommendations in terms of who you like to watch? Have you ever considered making one of your own or starting to speak with others directly face-to-face? Not everyone reacts to the satsangs this same way that you do, and that's just the big 'ole wide world spinning itself out. Just the Universe expressing itself in all it's wild and untamed glory and multiplicity.  The reactions people have to nonduality run a very broad spectrum, from our resonance through complete indifference on all the way to a deep and open hostility. Basic human psychology can be useful and interesting in describing some of those more extreme negative reactions. And that can be summed up with a simple question: what are they frightened of?
But I think it's important when confronted with that to bear in mind that this kind of fear usually involves some pain underneath it, and the more intense the hostility, the more intense the suffering of that pain. I think the truth frightens people. Mind identification implies lack of acceptance of oneself, or, if we want to go Tolle, lack of acceptance of what is, as opposed to some non dual universal truth of personal non existence. The fear would then be in letting go of resistance.
And yet, letting go of resistance or acceptance of life as it tends to be coupled to some conscious realization of the illusory nature of the experiential framework, which is a scary prospect when the belief is you are the person in that framework.
|
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 20:57:43 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Aug 31, 2016 20:57:43 GMT -5
Maybe, but I think you know what to do to answer that for yourself. Any recommendations in terms of who you like to watch? Have you ever considered making one of your own or starting to speak with others directly face-to-face? Not everyone reacts to the satsangs this same way that you do, and that's just the big 'ole wide world spinning itself out. Just the Universe expressing itself in all it's wild and untamed glory and multiplicity. The reactions people have to nonduality run a very broad spectrum, from our resonance through complete indifference on all the way to a deep and open hostility. Basic human psychology can be useful and interesting in describing some of those more extreme negative reactions. And that can be summed up with a simple question: what are they frightened of?
But I think it's important when confronted with that to bear in mind that this kind of fear usually involves some pain underneath it, and the more intense the hostility, the more intense the suffering of that pain. I think the truth frightens people. Mind identification implies lack of acceptance of oneself, or, if we want to go Tolle, lack of acceptance of what is, as opposed to some non dual universal truth of personal non existence. The fear would then be in letting go of resistance.
And yet, letting go of resistance or acceptance of life as it tends to be coupled to some conscious realization of the illusory nature of the experiential framework, which is a scary prospect when the belief is you are the person in that framework.
Especially when that framework can be so convincing. People take for granted their sense of reality to the extent that there's simply no way most of them will become conscious of it just by regarding it directly, either by thinking about it or meditating with it in mind. I've seen various reactions to the dream/dreamer metaphor here over the years. For some peeps a forceful rejection of it seems to make up a hard core of their conceptualized reality. If that rejection doesn't form that core it at the very least reveals it, which is a distinction without a difference (dwad). Others are more insightful and nuanced, tending to both draw and/or blur lines between what seems to be real and what is real. Sometimes the expression of those lines is such that it will sound identical in either case if there's an underlying compartmentalized belief or not. Which is the case usually comes out when the dialog gets into depth, especially when it starts getting contentious. On the flip side, one of the points either of these groups make which is valid is that dismissing the physical world as a dream can be a place for a peep to hide from and rationalize away Tolle's "what is", and thereby, as you describe, rationalize away their sense of themselves. Day-to-day life is bypassed as insignificant based on the meme of it being an illusion. Niz had something really interesting to say about that and when I first logged on here those years ago I was still in the process of informing mind and between Niz and the evil frog is where I finally put any questions about it to rest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 21:33:51 GMT -5
What i did notice was you stating, 'a self evident truth requires no proof' and you gave up discussing the matter any further after i shared how that seems illogical due to the term 'evident' means having actual or a personal judgement that oneself has adequate proof to label something a truth. Evident-evidence-proof...to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact. I am awarenees and that awareness is the background from which mind and perception arises. Awareness is unaffected and untouched by phenomena. This is a self evident truth to me. It is not possible to prove it to you or anyone else because it is not possible for you to get inside my mind. The only way for you to have proof is to prove it for yourself because if you know pure awareness then it will be the same pure awareness I know as there is only one. |
|
|
|
You
Aug 31, 2016 22:27:35 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Aug 31, 2016 22:27:35 GMT -5
I think the truth frightens people. Mind identification implies lack of acceptance of oneself, or, if we want to go Tolle, lack of acceptance of what is, as opposed to some non dual universal truth of personal non existence. The fear would then be in letting go of resistance.
And yet, letting go of resistance or acceptance of life as it tends to be coupled to some conscious realization of the illusory nature of the experiential framework, which is a scary prospect when the belief is you are the person in that framework.
Especially when that framework can be so convincing. People take for granted their sense of reality to the extent that there's simply no way most of them will become conscious of it just by regarding it directly, either by thinking about it or meditating with it in mind. I've seen various reactions to the dream/dreamer metaphor here over the years. For some peeps a forceful rejection of it seems to make up a hard core of their conceptualized reality. If that rejection doesn't form that core it at the very least reveals it, which is a distinction without a difference (dwad). Others are more insightful and nuanced, tending to both draw and/or blur lines between what seems to be real and what is real. Sometimes the expression of those lines is such that it will sound identical in either case if there's an underlying compartmentalized belief or not. Which is the case usually comes out when the dialog gets into depth, especially when it starts getting contentious. On the flip side, one of the points either of these groups make which is valid is that dismissing the physical world as a dream can be a place for a peep to hide from and rationalize away Tolle's "what is", and thereby, as you describe, rationalize away their sense of themselves. Day-to-day life is bypassed as insignificant based on the meme of it being an illusion. Niz had something really interesting to say about that and when I first logged on here those years ago I was still in the process of informing mind and between Niz and the evil frog is where I finally put any questions about it to rest. Most of Tolle's teachings in some way revolve around the 'person' and conditioned resistance to conditioned thinking, which is always unconscious. That can be interpreted as personal resistance to the condition of now, or avoidance of a projection of future which isn't real, which is when it becomes obvious there is more to 'waking up' than just seeing through the person as if such a seeing is an experience of the person (very common delusion).
I think you nailed it in the last paragraph. Hardcore enlightenment peeps can be the most spiritually unconscious, because the tendency to gravitate toward nihilism or bleeding heart no self-ism can often be embedded into their law of attraction. At the end of the day we could say these individuals use spirituality as a coping mechanism, and what's being coped with is how fargged up the dream can be, so the draw toward dismissing personal reality as morally inferior in comparison to an absolutist belief structure is understandable.
|
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 1:02:02 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2016 1:02:02 GMT -5
Especially when that framework can be so convincing. People take for granted their sense of reality to the extent that there's simply no way most of them will become conscious of it just by regarding it directly, either by thinking about it or meditating with it in mind. I've seen various reactions to the dream/dreamer metaphor here over the years. For some peeps a forceful rejection of it seems to make up a hard core of their conceptualized reality. If that rejection doesn't form that core it at the very least reveals it, which is a distinction without a difference (dwad). Others are more insightful and nuanced, tending to both draw and/or blur lines between what seems to be real and what is real. Sometimes the expression of those lines is such that it will sound identical in either case if there's an underlying compartmentalized belief or not. Which is the case usually comes out when the dialog gets into depth, especially when it starts getting contentious. On the flip side, one of the points either of these groups make which is valid is that dismissing the physical world as a dream can be a place for a peep to hide from and rationalize away Tolle's "what is", and thereby, as you describe, rationalize away their sense of themselves. Day-to-day life is bypassed as insignificant based on the meme of it being an illusion. Niz had something really interesting to say about that and when I first logged on here those years ago I was still in the process of informing mind and between Niz and the evil frog is where I finally put any questions about it to rest. Most of Tolle's teachings in some way revolve around the 'person' and conditioned resistance to conditioned thinking, which is always unconscious. That can be interpreted as personal resistance to the condition of now, or avoidance of a projection of future which isn't real, which is when it becomes obvious there is more to 'waking up' than just seeing through the person as if such a seeing is an experience of the person (very common delusion).
I think you nailed it in the last paragraph. Hardcore enlightenment peeps can be the most spiritually unconscious, because the tendency to gravitate toward nihilism or bleeding heart no self-ism can often be embedded into their law of attraction. At the end of the day we could say these individuals use spirituality as a coping mechanism, and what's being coped with is how fargged up the dream can be, so the draw toward dismissing personal reality as morally inferior in comparison to an absolutist belief structure is understandable.
Now I can't say that I've ever knowingly met someone with that sort of belief structure playing out. Some of the peeps on the interwebs seem to express something like it from time to time, and surprisingly, it can take on lots of different characteristics and look very different from peep to peep. Reefs coined a term, "identity poker", which I find appropriate. Struck me at first as an auspicious position from which to realize the truth, as believing "I am Source/Consciousness/Oneness/Awareness/All That Is" etc. would sorta' seem as though it's closer to the truth than "I'm a separate volitional peep made of stuff". Problem is, of course, than any and every conceptualized sense of identity or reality is ultimately infinitely distant from the truth. What's really fascinating about "The Power of Now" is that he doesn't use the word "person" even once. A peep can read it, have their perspective rocked, maybe get a woo-woo out of the deal, but then still show up on the internet all surprised like .. " what?? peeps aren't real??  my thought's aren't my volitional creation??  nah! (** ptoooey! **) I don't like it!!  " Tolle is gentle, seductive and potentially sly that way, he just kinda' sneaks up on a peep.  |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 2:00:51 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Sept 1, 2016 2:00:51 GMT -5
Most of Tolle's teachings in some way revolve around the 'person' and conditioned resistance to conditioned thinking, which is always unconscious. That can be interpreted as personal resistance to the condition of now, or avoidance of a projection of future which isn't real, which is when it becomes obvious there is more to 'waking up' than just seeing through the person as if such a seeing is an experience of the person (very common delusion).
I think you nailed it in the last paragraph. Hardcore enlightenment peeps can be the most spiritually unconscious, because the tendency to gravitate toward nihilism or bleeding heart no self-ism can often be embedded into their law of attraction. At the end of the day we could say these individuals use spirituality as a coping mechanism, and what's being coped with is how fargged up the dream can be, so the draw toward dismissing personal reality as morally inferior in comparison to an absolutist belief structure is understandable.
Now I can't say that I've ever knowingly met someone with that sort of belief structure playing out. Some of the peeps on the interwebs seem to express something like it from time to time, and surprisingly, it can take on lots of different characteristics and look very different from peep to peep. Reefs coined a term, "identity poker", which I find appropriate. Struck me at first as an auspicious position from which to realize the truth, as believing "I am Source/Consciousness/Oneness/Awareness/All That Is" etc. would sorta' seem as though it's closer to the truth than "I'm a separate volitional peep made of stuff". Problem is, of course, than any and every conceptualized sense of identity or reality is ultimately infinitely distant from the truth. What's really fascinating about "The Power of Now" is that he doesn't use the word "person" even once. A peep can read it, have their perspective rocked, maybe get a woo-woo out of the deal, but then still show up on the internet all surprised like .. " what?? peeps aren't real?? my thought's aren't my volitional creation?? nah! (** ptoooey! **) I don't like it!! " Tolle is gentle, seductive and potentially sly that way, he just kinda' sneaks up on a peep. Yes Tolle sticks to the word ego and equates that with mind identification, and then equates the mind with resistance, and then talks about aspects of the human experience as the source of that resistance. He appeals to the spiritual teacher in all of us.
I would say the I am Source/Consciousness/Awareness belief structure is almost an inevitable consequence of suffering and having spiritual experiences or being exposed to certain teachings. I used to speak with groups a while back and I've come to the conclusion that almost everyone is looking for something to believe in and everyone who is suffering is doing so because of beliefs that aren't true. When you get into the belief in non-belief, in order to get out of that, a high degree of consciousness and presence is required. Once the mind starts playing gatekeeper with its own thinking, uninvited guests are already hanging out in the cavities that play a role in generating such thoughts in the first place. Explaining to the mind that it is its own intrusive thoughts isn't difficult, but its a lot easier to just believe there is no mind and let the circus continue, until it no longer is.
|
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 2:41:45 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 1, 2016 2:41:45 GMT -5
What i did notice was you stating, 'a self evident truth requires no proof' and you gave up discussing the matter any further after i shared how that seems illogical due to the term 'evident' means having actual or a personal judgement that oneself has adequate proof to label something a truth. Evident-evidence-proof...to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact. I am awarenees and that awareness is the background from which mind and perception arises. Awareness is unaffected and untouched by phenomena. This is a self evident truth to me. It is not possible to prove it to you or anyone else because it is not possible for you to get inside my mind. The only way for you to have proof is to prove it for yourself because if you know pure awareness then it will be the same pure awareness I know as there is only one. I hope you remembered to take your soapbox with you now that your done talking to me 'cus you can't be bothered. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 2:48:40 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 1, 2016 2:48:40 GMT -5
When you say "to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact", I'm guessing most would respond along the lines of 'Whoa! He's my brother, but it's a long and winding road back to sanity from here, and I haven't packed nearly enough clean socks and underwear for the journey. Nothing new here, just more character assassination - accusing me of being insane because i do not hold to the same beliefs as you. What a pointless and long winded post just to tell me your personal opinion of me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 3:27:02 GMT -5
I am awarenees and that awareness is the background from which mind and perception arises. Awareness is unaffected and untouched by phenomena. This is a self evident truth to me. It is not possible to prove it to you or anyone else because it is not possible for you to get inside my mind. The only way for you to have proof is to prove it for yourself because if you know pure awareness then it will be the same pure awareness I know as there is only one. I hope you remembered to take your soapbox with you now that your done talking to me 'cus you can't be bothered. I just talked to you. Not good enough? |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 10:25:49 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Sept 1, 2016 10:25:49 GMT -5
When you say "to me 'self evident' simply means self has determines they have seen enough evidence-proof that something is true or fact", I'm guessing most would respond along the lines of 'Whoa! He's my brother, but it's a long and winding road back to sanity from here, and I haven't packed nearly enough clean socks and underwear for the journey. Nothing new here, just more character assassination - accusing me of being insane because i do not hold to the same beliefs as you. What a pointless and long winded post just to tell me your personal opinion of me. Wait, so you are telling me that my two sentence post is long winded??  I'm saying conversation with you is typically a major investment with very little payoff, so don't be surprised when someone says they can't be bothered. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 13:36:56 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2016 13:36:56 GMT -5
Nothing new here, just more character assassination - accusing me of being insane because i do not hold to the same beliefs as you. What a pointless and long winded post just to tell me your personal opinion of me. Wait, so you are telling me that my two sentence post is long winded?? I'm saying conversation with you is typically a major investment with very little payoff, so don't be surprised when someone says they can't be bothered. wasn't most of the first sentence just repeating back one of his?? |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 13:37:51 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2016 13:37:51 GMT -5
I hope you remembered to take your soapbox with you now that your done talking to me 'cus you can't be bothered. I just talked to you. Not good enough? at least you weren't accused of not keeping it clean. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 13:38:33 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 1, 2016 13:38:33 GMT -5
Nothing new here, just more character assassination - accusing me of being insane because i do not hold to the same beliefs as you. What a pointless and long winded post just to tell me your personal opinion of me. Wait, so you are telling me that my two sentence post is long winded?? I'm saying conversation with you is typically a major investment with very little payoff, so don't be surprised when someone says they can't be bothered. Q, Yes i am. I judge it's long winded to write two sentences to express, 'you're insane'. RE:payoff. I have already expressed in detail why i think satchitananda has expressed he can't be bothered. I see no rational reason for you to state what i already have considered to be the case. That seems to be another pointless effort on your part. And your generalization is inaccurate. There's quite a few here who enjoy conversing with me, and many who aren't using interactions to receive payoffs. Preacher types who wish to convert others to their beliefs, seek payoffs, of successfully convincing others to accept what they say is the absolute truth about a matter, and logically can become frustrated, upset and dicouraged when they don't succeed. Poor deluded folk who are so convinced their beliefs are so obviously the absolute truth that they find it very difficult to understand how another does not share the same thoughts or feelings aboth them, and thus find the going tough when conversing with them. I allocate very little of my time to people who seek to use me for their own benefit, and who have various levels of hissy fits when they don't get what they want out of a social interaction. Though every now and then i will seek to understadn via conversation why. My conversation with satchitananda hs nothing to do with me being surprised or not. I am well aware of satchitananda's usual MO when conversing with me, he makes an effort, then quickly gets frustrated, upset and discouraged because i haven't magically believed or fully understood his statements, then gives up and often disparages me as his closing remarks. The disparagement is due to being upset, frustrated. Do you even understand the simple mechanisms of conversing with a person to enquire and learn about their personal thoughts and feelings about a matter. When i ask satchitananda to tell me why he said he can't be bothered anymore, that this is not an invite for you or anyone else to tell me what you think he's thinking and feeling. I am asking satchitananda because i want to know what he thinks and feels. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 13:47:12 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 1, 2016 13:47:12 GMT -5
I hope you remembered to take your soapbox with you now that your done talking to me 'cus you can't be bothered. I just talked to you. Not good enough? I never mentioned or inferred you have not spoken to me or that i was satisfied or not. Though i will clarify that i think your previous response is one of the best examples of woo woo preaching i have seen for a long time, so much so that i envisioned it to be your prideful self righteous closing remark to the heathenistic spiritually inferior person you perceive me as, and i just wanted to make sure you remembered to take your soapbox with you, 'cus in the throngs or an emotional high, those kinds of logistical things can be overlooked. Q. Oh no, on the contrary, i was more that satisfied, i was very impressed. |
|
Any recommendations in terms of who you like to watch? Have you ever considered making one of your own or starting to speak with others directly face-to-face?
The reactions people have to nonduality run a very broad spectrum, from our resonance through complete indifference on all the way to a deep and open hostility. Basic human psychology can be useful and interesting in describing some of those more extreme negative reactions. And that can be summed up with a simple question: what are they frightened of? 
nah! (** ptoooey! **) I don't like it!! 