I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term.
What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do?
I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is.
I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as.
I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion.
I suppose I'm exploring the depth of hostility I perceive in your posts. But it's not important.
Is there actual hostility or are you only interpeting there is based on the accumulated knowledge from past experiences?
"The self-controled soul, who moves amongst sense objects, free from either attachment or repulsion, he wins eternal peace." - Bhagavad Gita
I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term.
What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do?
I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is.
I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as.
I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion.
Most of us on the forum would not consider Advaita, Zen, or any of the non-dual traditions to be belief systems. For us they are more like fingers that point to direct perception that transcends thought, and they all encourage direct experience. The basic admonition is, "Don;t believe anything anyone says; go find the truth for yourself." If people want to believe that Advaita is a belief system, they're free to do so, but all of the major figures associated with Advaita advise people to "look within," "do self-inquiry," "look for what is looking," "be still and know," etc.
I'm well aware that most folks here don't accept those are belief systems. though I find it interesting you seem to be also saying you folks won't even consider the notion.
For what I'm stating is it's actually possible they are, I don't state they actually are, just poinitng out they might be. But from past experiences, those that accept it's the absolute truth about existence won't even allocate time and effort to explore the possibility, because they are thoroughly convinced it can't be a belief system, a perception of reality controlled by one's thoughts about it.
I was once a born again christian: while immersed in that belief system, there was no considration it was only a belief system. I was utterely convinced it was the absolute truth about existence. That there was no self deception occuring, no delusion, no misinterpretation of reality. After considering it might not be the absolute truth about reality due to discrepancies of claims against what was actually occuring in reality, I chose to remove all christian claims about reality form my mindtank and was able to then see reality devoid of filtering from those ideaologies.
Thus I experienced how easy it is to have one's perception influenced by thoughts while thinking you weren't.
But no more talk of the matter as you've clearly stated you folks won't even consider an alternative view of that which you accept as absolute truth about reality.
If the mind becomes quiescent, seeing and understanding continues, but not in the form of thoughts or beliefs. The world is then interacted with directly rather than indirectly through ideas and distinctions. To understand what this means one must be willing to suspend thoughts for a while and acquire some direct experience. Those who are unwilling to do that will never understand how understanding can continue in the absence of thought.
And I too am able to interface with existence devoid of thought, I can "directly experience" reality, I do this whenever I go into still-minded Zen meditation mode and can do so while doing various things, walking in nature, driving my car, making breakfast.
The difference is I come up with different conclusions about reality, but I am then accused of not experiencing DE simply because I see a separate self and SR folks do not. Thus my conclusion is SR folks only make this claim because my conclusions do not align with Advaita doctrine\precepts, thus I theorise Advaita is simply just another beleif system, and those immersd within it see it's absolute truth because they believe it is.
"The self-controled soul, who moves amongst sense objects, free from either attachment or repulsion, he wins eternal peace." - Bhagavad Gita
The possibility of a relatively greater freedom from suffering is commonly available to most human beings, regardless of SR. What thought is nondual? What thought is absolute?
Yes, how much suffering we have boils down to how much attachment we still have, and SR is just one of the many tools that can help us find non-attachment and therefore non-suffering. One thing though in SR and Self-Actualization (SA) -- that is perhaps absent from most other paths/methods -- is that we go into an absolute state of bliss and to say it is "freedom from suffering" becomes quite an understatement. That said, although I have't tried all the paths/methods myself, it is fair to infer that most of them will eventually lead to SR and SA.
Thoughts are nondual/absolute when they happen while we are immersed or abiding in the Absolute. Put another way, they are non-attachment thinking as opposed to attachment thinking, hence the freedom from suffering. For this to happen, what we really require is not so much SR but SA, especially if SR happened a while ago and has become merely a memory rather than a day-to-day / moment-to-moment reality. As the saying goes, it is easy to attain enlightenment but not so easy to maintain it.
Just to clarify that I am not referring to the Maslow kind of SA (although it can include that as well) but one that is in the words of RM, "perpetual abidance in Brahman, the Absolute."
Interesting points -- lots of food for thought! RM also said that the enlightenment that comes and goes is not the final realization. The final realization is that one is and one has always been, constantly immersed in Brahman, no matter what the appearances otherwise. One abides in Brahman 24/7 whether one likes it or not.
So I'm not sure I can buy this idea of "non-attachment thinking." All thinking is a kind of attachment thinking -- it's all egoic in one way or another. And nonduality is realizing the illusoriness of the ego, so it might quiet the mind and lead to less thinking. And that might be called less suffering, but that's quite different from thinking that is itself somehow "pure" and "abiding."
To the extent that a thought is pure and abiding, they all are. To the extent that it isn't, no thought is pure that way.
Good scientists admit that such and such theory best explains the evidence so far. In other words, there's a fundamental lack of certainty in positive statements like theory. But there is certainty in what is not the case, as you note. Theses can be rendered false via experimentation. Yes very similar to neti neti. However the endpoint of neti neti, like headlessness, is far from just a negation. Rather, an all encompassing affirmation, like wiping the condensation from a window.
Yes, I agree about the end point. One of the differences I was thinking of is how science is always focused outward, on an objective metric. Neti-neti involves attention that can focus either outwardly or inwardly, and the latter, of course, is where the money shot eventually lies.
Those good scientists with the open minds are responding to the Universe as it appears: constantly changing and of a scope beyond imagination. This "not-knowing" strikes me as similar to what the Zen guys talk about in that we could characterize it with some aphorism like "the only known that never varies is that there is the unknown". Materially speaking this is can mark a genuinely open perspective. The business of science is likely to continue long into the foreseeable future.
But even those good guys aren't in the free fall of neti-neti. That "not-knowing" is similar, but not the same. The conceptual structures they build become unassailable precisely because they've survived the scrutiny. Do you know any educated atheist who really thinks of evolution as a "theory"? Now, I'm not suggesting that there's some viable alternative to Darwin, but I am suggesting that the rational worldview of a scientist is a perfect set-up for a sense of identity based on the assumption of realism that is so deep in their psyche as to have an unquestionable component, whether they're conscious of that or not.
They wouldn't have to allow for the possibility of a flat Earth to become conscious of that assumption, but they would have to see the perspective of the Solar System as Sun-centric for what it is.
You may like to listen to that convo between Sam Harris and Thomas Metzinger. Both scientists, both atheists, both long term meditators having seen through selfhood. I'd think they'd agree that theory/law is part of the conceptual overlay/narrative that includes self, but I'm not sure. Some narratives are better than others, basically. One of Harris' projects is to help foster a 'spirituality' for the nonreligious.
Yes, how much suffering we have boils down to how much attachment we still have, and SR is just one of the many tools that can help us find non-attachment and therefore non-suffering. One thing though in SR and Self-Actualization (SA) -- that is perhaps absent from most other paths/methods -- is that we go into an absolute state of bliss and to say it is "freedom from suffering" becomes quite an understatement. That said, although I have't tried all the paths/methods myself, it is fair to infer that most of them will eventually lead to SR and SA.
Thoughts are nondual/absolute when they happen while we are immersed or abiding in the Absolute. Put another way, they are non-attachment thinking as opposed to attachment thinking, hence the freedom from suffering. For this to happen, what we really require is not so much SR but SA, especially if SR happened a while ago and has become merely a memory rather than a day-to-day / moment-to-moment reality. As the saying goes, it is easy to attain enlightenment but not so easy to maintain it.
Just to clarify that I am not referring to the Maslow kind of SA (although it can include that as well) but one that is in the words of RM, "perpetual abidance in Brahman, the Absolute."
Interesting points -- lots of food for thought! RM also said that the enlightenment that comes and goes is not the final realization. The final realization is that one is and one has always been, constantly immersed in Brahman, no matter what the appearances otherwise. One abides in Brahman 24/7 whether one likes it or not.
So I'm not sure I can buy this idea of "non-attachment thinking." All thinking is a kind of attachment thinking -- it's all egoic in one way or another. And nonduality is realizing the illusoriness of the ego, so it might quiet the mind and lead to less thinking. And that might be called less suffering, but that's quite different from thinking that is itself somehow "pure" and "abiding."
To the extent that a thought is pure and abiding, they all are. To the extent that it isn't, no thought is pure that way.
Yes, that final realization!! Thanks for sharing that I am however hesitant in using the words “final”, “complete” or “full” when it comes to realization or enlightenment, for evolution is a never-ending journey and there is always further room for growth.
Depending on what you mean by “egoic”, I’m actually not against enjoying the worldly life. As Tilopa said: “The problem is not enjoyment; the problem is attachment.” For instance, I enjoy having dinner with my girlfriend but sometimes she has to work late and we have to postpone our dinner date, but I’m not upset, disappointed or angry, ie, I do not suffer, but I still in my heart have the wish or desire to meet her. So we can have wishes, desires, goals but still not suffer even when we do not succeed in fulfilling them. When we’ve stopped enjoying the worldly life, then we’ve become attached to non-attachment (or emptiness) and may have even developed a fear of attachment. True non-attachment is when we are not attached to attachment nor non-attachment. We can remain in the Absolute even when we are enjoying the worldly life, for the Absolute can be found in anything and everything, in joy and in pain. When laughing, just laugh. When having sex, just have sex. When crying, just cry.
A complete renunciation of the worldly life is not suitable for most people especially those with family and kids, and it’s not even necessary.
“Thinking that is pure and abiding”, do you mean thinking of the effortless kind? Then perhaps a more accurate term would be “knowing” instead of “thinking”?
Yes, I agree about the end point. One of the differences I was thinking of is how science is always focused outward, on an objective metric. Neti-neti involves attention that can focus either outwardly or inwardly, and the latter, of course, is where the money shot eventually lies.
Those good scientists with the open minds are responding to the Universe as it appears: constantly changing and of a scope beyond imagination. This "not-knowing" strikes me as similar to what the Zen guys talk about in that we could characterize it with some aphorism like "the only known that never varies is that there is the unknown". Materially speaking this is can mark a genuinely open perspective. The business of science is likely to continue long into the foreseeable future.
But even those good guys aren't in the free fall of neti-neti. That "not-knowing" is similar, but not the same. The conceptual structures they build become unassailable precisely because they've survived the scrutiny. Do you know any educated atheist who really thinks of evolution as a "theory"? Now, I'm not suggesting that there's some viable alternative to Darwin, but I am suggesting that the rational worldview of a scientist is a perfect set-up for a sense of identity based on the assumption of realism that is so deep in their psyche as to have an unquestionable component, whether they're conscious of that or not.
They wouldn't have to allow for the possibility of a flat Earth to become conscious of that assumption, but they would have to see the perspective of the Solar System as Sun-centric for what it is.
You may like to listen to that convo between Sam Harris and Thomas Metzinger. Both scientists, both atheists, both long term meditators having seen through selfhood. I'd think they'd agree that theory/law is part of the conceptual overlay/narrative that includes self, but I'm not sure. Some narratives are better than others, basically. One of Harris' projects is to help foster a 'spirituality' for the nonreligious.
That's a fine and noble intent for sure, but from my perspective, scientific thought is currently a central pillar in the consensus cultural trance. The existential truth is found at that silent, motionless point balanced on the knife edge of a ridgeline. Down one slope is magic and emotion, and off the other is reason.
Thanks for the recommendation on Sam. I've noticed your interest in him and he's been on my radar for that.
Last Edit: Nov 27, 2017 17:59:50 GMT -5 by laughter
My pleasure My background and interests are part-zen and part-New Age, and coupled with my personal experiences in self-healing and spiritual practice, I find this is the afterlife perspective that feels true for me.
Yes, and that is possible, but just not a truth I resonate strongly with.
Some of what Maharshi and Nisargardatta said on the topic of reincarnation is quite startling given their native cultural context. Are you familiar with Maharshi's awakening story? Have you ever noticed the Hindu influence on the New-Age culture?
Thanks for bringing this up. Just had time to read/re-read a little on what they said about reincarnation/rebirth. Seems to me their views are quite buddhist-like. Not sure if they got it from Buddhism or it's their own authentic truth; likely a combination of both. In any case, it can potentially suffer from the same fate as Bertrand Russell's turkey as they were making inference/induction based on what they had experienced/observed about energy, awareness and consciousness in their present life, as opposed to having personally visited or seen the afterworld / beforeworld. RM’s 'death experience' could just be an OBE or NDE. Had it been a real death, he wouldn’t had been able to come back. In fact, many who have had NDE reported meeting their deceased loved ones and even had a life-review with their spirit guide or a being of light during which their whole life flashed before them in an instant, and life lessons and missions were sometimes explained to them so that they could return to hopefully fulfill them.
Just because someone is enlightened does not mean they suddenly become all-knowing and all-seeing; they would still have their biases, information gaps (lots of it) and belief system, however subtle. Some of them may not even know how to use a mobile phone or drive a car, let alone know what lies beyond this universe and dimension, and even more so, worlds that are imperceptible/incomprehensible to us. What they had gained is a very specific kind of wisdom, one that pertains to liberation from suffering for a human being. There are many other kinds of wisdom even just on earth alone, such as in science, technology, arts, medicine, relationships, business and politics. But yes, spiritual wisdom, or the ability to tap into the Absolute/Source, is the sweetest kind of wisdom and an excellent foundation for all these other kinds of wisdom.
I believe in their enlightenment and thank them for their teachings, but have to disagree with their views on reincarnation.
Interesting points -- lots of food for thought! RM also said that the enlightenment that comes and goes is not the final realization. The final realization is that one is and one has always been, constantly immersed in Brahman, no matter what the appearances otherwise. One abides in Brahman 24/7 whether one likes it or not.
So I'm not sure I can buy this idea of "non-attachment thinking." All thinking is a kind of attachment thinking -- it's all egoic in one way or another. And nonduality is realizing the illusoriness of the ego, so it might quiet the mind and lead to less thinking. And that might be called less suffering, but that's quite different from thinking that is itself somehow "pure" and "abiding."
To the extent that a thought is pure and abiding, they all are. To the extent that it isn't, no thought is pure that way.
Yes, that final realization!! Thanks for sharing that I am however hesitant in using the words “final”, “complete” or “full” when it comes to realization or enlightenment, for evolution is a never-ending journey and there is always further room for growth.
Depending on what you mean by “egoic”, I’m actually not against enjoying the worldly life. As Tilopa said: “The problem is not enjoyment; the problem is attachment.” For instance, I enjoy having dinner with my girlfriend but sometimes she has to work late and we have to postpone our dinner date, but I’m not upset, disappointed or angry, ie, I do not suffer, but I still in my heart have the wish or desire to meet her. So we can have wishes, desires, goals but still not suffer even when we do not succeed in fulfilling them. When we’ve stopped enjoying the worldly life, then we’ve become attached to non-attachment (or emptiness) and may have even developed a fear of attachment. True non-attachment is when we are not attached to attachment nor non-attachment. We can remain in the Absolute even when we are enjoying the worldly life, for the Absolute can be found in anything and everything, in joy and in pain. When laughing, just laugh. When having sex, just have sex. When crying, just cry.
So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute?
Yes, that final realization!! Thanks for sharing that I am however hesitant in using the words “final”, “complete” or “full” when it comes to realization or enlightenment, for evolution is a never-ending journey and there is always further room for growth.
Depending on what you mean by “egoic”, I’m actually not against enjoying the worldly life. As Tilopa said: “The problem is not enjoyment; the problem is attachment.” For instance, I enjoy having dinner with my girlfriend but sometimes she has to work late and we have to postpone our dinner date, but I’m not upset, disappointed or angry, ie, I do not suffer, but I still in my heart have the wish or desire to meet her. So we can have wishes, desires, goals but still not suffer even when we do not succeed in fulfilling them. When we’ve stopped enjoying the worldly life, then we’ve become attached to non-attachment (or emptiness) and may have even developed a fear of attachment. True non-attachment is when we are not attached to attachment nor non-attachment. We can remain in the Absolute even when we are enjoying the worldly life, for the Absolute can be found in anything and everything, in joy and in pain. When laughing, just laugh. When having sex, just have sex. When crying, just cry.
So I guess this is my key issue: are we not in the Absolute at all times, no matter what? Why would it be dependent on "just laughing" or "just" doing anything? Even if, when we are crying, we are thinking of the past or the future -- is that not happening in the Absolute?
Absolutely! Haha. Going to the grocery store is the Absolute going to the grocery store. Same same with everything else. FWIW there’s no one “in” the Absolute. The Absolute is all there is. Seeing this clearly is what SR is all about.
