|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2017 10:51:24 GMT -5
 No, not necessarily. What I wrote was completely in jest. There's this sentiment I have that most people with an interest in channeling the dead have an underlying fear of death. I see this very clearly as an artifact of my past conditioning. The exact conditioning I just described to you.  Jest it may well have been, though such an image is a 'just' cultural condition, best brought to the surface save the possibility that any remnants of it are still being believed. And this would apply to both sides of the coin of this particular belief about channeling the dead .. what's the source of the conditioning that would lead someone to believe in the veracity of a channel? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 17:51:49 GMT -5
Jest it may well have been, though such an image is a 'just' cultural condition, best brought to the surface save the possibility that any remnants of it are still being believed. And this would apply to both sides of the coin of this particular belief about channeling the dead .. what's the source of the conditioning that would lead someone to believe in the veracity of a channel? And what is the source of the conditioning that would lead someone to believe that the term Infinite is only applicable to what they can see with their physical eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2017 1:07:43 GMT -5
What Hitchins is is what reads these words. That makes no sense, which makes it sound quite mystical, teehee. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2017 18:01:12 GMT -5
And this would apply to both sides of the coin of this particular belief about channeling the dead .. what's the source of the conditioning that would lead someone to believe in the veracity of a channel? And what is the source of the conditioning that would lead someone to believe that the term Infinite is only applicable to what they can see with their physical eyes? Well, sure, I'd be glad to be of help sorting out where the conditioning begins and ends. But first, would you agree that the clues to it here are buried in the premise to your last question? I can guess at what they are, but I'd rather not. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2017 18:03:54 GMT -5
What Hitchins is is what reads these words. That makes no sense, which makes it sound quite mystical, teehee. The culture at large will likely eventually replace the mystery of consciousness with some other sort of puzzle some time in the future. But it's just a form of collective, psychological whack-a-mole. It's always the same mystery, just a different idea. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 8, 2017 23:31:29 GMT -5
That makes no sense, which makes it sound quite mystical, teehee. The culture at large will likely eventually replace the mystery of consciousness with some other sort of puzzle some time in the future. But it's just a form of collective, psychological whack-a-mole. It's always the same mystery, just a different idea. Ah, whack a mole, it all make sense now! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2017 16:43:21 GMT -5
The culture at large will likely eventually replace the mystery of consciousness with some other sort of puzzle some time in the future. But it's just a form of collective, psychological whack-a-mole. It's always the same mystery, just a different idea. Ah, whack a mole, it all make sense now! ok ok allright allright ... but seriously, isn't what makes this sound " mystical" a genuine mystery? Can't it be expressed as, "what is consciousness?". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2017 20:38:42 GMT -5
This question is for Max too: if you were to recommend one book or one series of youtube videos what would it be? Krishnamurti - what is meditation - and why should one meditate at all. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW96eZsR710Krishnamurti's series of talks with David Bohm and David Shainberg is worth a look but it's 7 videos long www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSMf8oW8jX8Thanks, I wasn't clear in the context that my question was about Harris, but I watched the video anyway. I can see how some folks might have some style issues with this guy. He even demonstrates a sense of humor about that (" (ha ha ha) I don't know how you stand all of this") ... the way I'd describe it is that he comes across as if he learned English from Rudyard Kipling. It's interesting to discern what is likely his past influence on the current culture of nonduality. What he says about seeking and systems, in particular, is all very "neo Advaita", and also, in my opinion, completely crystal clear. What he says about authority, observation and self-discovery is exactly what ZD was referring to in his response to xanderJay here about how seekers are told to find out for themselves rather than rely on belief. What J.K. says about experience is very much related to E's insistence (related to a point that Reefs used to make) that experience can't ultimately tell you anything about what you really are and what you can eventually discover in (what J.K. calls) the meditation. In the final analysis, I differ on J.K's equation of sanity and rationality. It's not that I don't see the value of rationality, especially in terms of what would be the early stages of a process of seeing the false as false and becoming conscious of the content of our minds and our past conditioning. But, like experience, rationality is ultimately limited. J.K. had some interesting things to say about "seer and seen", and that dichotomy also applies to the rationalist, as at the root of every rational thought is the thinker and the content of the mind. I'm not advocating the embrace of irrational notions or unprovable theories and beliefs, but rather, the throwing away of what for me was the last crutch of the mind. I can also see his influence on what you wrote about meditation a few years back now. The practice ideas are really pure gold. "We're talking about something very very difficult. How to bring about order without control." gave me a powerful deja vu for the "Effortlessness" thread. Like all of us his perspective is informed by his life. I'd opine that not everything he says about bitterness necessarily applies to everyone, and while I understand and see the value in the idea of standing alone, not everyone needs to reject all spiritual fellowship in order to find inner peace. It's enough to see how that fellowship can lead to the distortion he's warning about. His point about pleasure and pain is also quite clear, but really, it's enough to see the see-saw for what it is. After all, it's never really possible to get off of it for as long as we're alive. Getting to a neutral state by self-discipline can put one in an auspicious place, but ultimately, it's unsustainable. This isn't to say that someone can't maintain that state for a long period of time, but the peace they find will be conditional, while the inner peace that J.K. was alluding to, is very much related to what is pointed to by the idea of "the unconditioned", or, "the absolute", if you will. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 10, 2017 0:05:38 GMT -5
Ah, whack a mole, it all make sense now! ok ok allright allright ... but seriously, isn't what makes this sound " mystical" a genuine mystery? Can't it be expressed as, "what is consciousness?". Yes, it's a mystery. Even to ask 'what it is' is only secondary to it being in the first place, so the scientific inquiry into consciousness, at least as scientific inquiry is currently defined, can only measure properties of matter which are quantifiable, after the fact of the experience itself... and the only possible outcome is the ever changing epistemology that is used to 'make sense' of our experience. When Fry says he believes in the enlightenment, by which he means empiricism, he must understand the changing paradigms that entails. The main issue with the Church is hardly a moral one as it is the Churche's function in upholding an 'unchanging story'. I mean, if the story changes that must mean they were wrong! Right? teehee. If there is one cool thing about science, it can be wrong, it often is, and the paradigm is at least somewhat free to change. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 10, 2017 6:20:40 GMT -5
Thanks, I wasn't clear in the context that my question was about Harris, but I watched the video anyway. I can see how some folks might have some style issues with this guy. He even demonstrates a sense of humor about that (" (ha ha ha) I don't know how you stand all of this") ... the way I'd describe it is that he comes across as if he learned English from Rudyard Kipling. It's interesting to discern what is likely his past influence on the current culture of nonduality. What he says about seeking and systems, in particular, is all very "neo Advaita", and also, in my opinion, completely crystal clear. What he says about authority, observation and self-discovery is exactly what ZD was referring to in his response to xanderJay here about how seekers are told to find out for themselves rather than rely on belief. What J.K. says about experience is very much related to E's insistence (related to a point that Reefs used to make) that experience can't ultimately tell you anything about what you really are and what you can eventually discover in (what J.K. calls) the meditation. In the final analysis, I differ on J.K's equation of sanity and rationality. It's not that I don't see the value of rationality, especially in terms of what would be the early stages of a process of seeing the false as false and becoming conscious of the content of our minds and our past conditioning. But, like experience, rationality is ultimately limited. J.K. had some interesting things to say about "seer and seen", and that dichotomy also applies to the rationalist, as at the root of every rational thought is the thinker and the content of the mind. I'm not advocating the embrace of irrational notions or unprovable theories and beliefs, but rather, the throwing away of what for me was the last crutch of the mind. I can also see his influence on what you wrote about meditation a few years back now. The practice ideas are really pure gold. "We're talking about something very very difficult. How to bring about order without control." gave me a powerful deja vu for the "Effortlessness" thread. Like all of us his perspective is informed by his life. I'd opine that not everything he says about bitterness necessarily applies to everyone, and while I understand and see the value in the idea of standing alone, not everyone needs to reject all spiritual fellowship in order to find inner peace. It's enough to see how that fellowship can lead to the distortion he's warning about. His point about pleasure and pain is also quite clear, but really, it's enough to see the see-saw for what it is. After all, it's never really possible to get off of it for as long as we're alive. Getting to a neutral state by self-discipline can put one in an auspicious place, but ultimately, it's unsustainable. This isn't to say that someone can't maintain that state for a long period of time, but the peace they find will be conditional, while the inner peace that J.K. was alluding to, is very much related to what is pointed to by the idea of "the unconditioned", or, "the absolute", if you will. The 'murt is my favorite speaker. I like others, but ol' 'murti, is more articulate than anyone else. More rebellious, really. His signature speech, 'The Truth is a Pathless Land' is the one that hooked me, and listened to a lot of his youtubes since, and read his book, 'Freedom from the Known' which was pretty insightful in my social work context apart from being a spiritual work. His 'observation' was a precise account of my own meditations. Though I learned my approach formally as Buddhist vipassana, the premises are the same as JK's, just to look and know, without doing anything 'additional'. My own meditative process was the process of eliminating (throwing away) anything that is unnecessary, which as it turned out, was anything I did myself. It kinda goes without saying that observation is 'concept free', but not so apparent that the 'activity of meditating' is just nonsense teachers use to maintain their 'meditation masters' positions. For example, what would be a TM teacher without their fabrication mantra? if a person wants to meditate, first stop generating the mantra. I say, whatever you are doing volitionally, don't do that. The breath is a good example because no one has to 'do' it. Then the meditation master will say 'breath deeply', 'breath into belly', 'breath in for 5 and out for 7', 'imagine prana lights', 'start counting up to ten breaths'. The meditation master needs the student to obey, so they need to give them something to 'do', and because the student is craving a false promise, they are convinced they will get a reward, and before long they can't stop their doing because of the false hope they have invested in these means to an end. Teehee, what is there wasn't a beginning, and there is no end? Who would bother doing what they are not already doing? More to the point, why is one doing what they are are doing? What motive, what intent, what volition actually drives the incessant activity in every urge to move one's mind? You might notice that this inquiry of mine has no instruction, to do, and one would have to take pause and investigate, stop and look, to become conscious of what impels and indeed compels them, and in regards to the 'rewards' I mentioned, one would see they are impelled by desire, want, and the associated sense of lack. Now we start to get to the truth of oneself, don't we? Start to understand things insightfully. Ok, let us imagine we are such a person inquiring thus, and then we sit and practice mantra? Is it not now impossible to continue the previous inquiry? Of course, we can't see sh!t because one simply can't stop and look and 'do' stuff at the same time. One can't be volitional and non-volitional at once, and it is necessary to stop in order to look as observation sees without 'doing anything'. That would sound like a JK narrative, but my narrative is the non-volitional fundamental of vipassana, and my own meditative process of removing the unnecessary - which is everything I 'do'. So, in my case it is impossible for me to practice out of wanting, as I already see the wanting, my meditation is prior as that which knows all arisings, all motives, and all doings. It therefore can't begin, and therefore can't be done. It is already conscious awareness as per the mind/body senses, and as the 'knower of this', I am certain without knowing anything about anything. Therein lies the mystery... and hence your concepts serve their functions, and like tools have good use, but like tools are void of any 'truth'. End rant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 7:40:07 GMT -5
Thanks, I wasn't clear in the context that my question was about Harris, but I watched the video anyway. I can see how some folks might have some style issues with this guy. He even demonstrates a sense of humor about that (" (ha ha ha) I don't know how you stand all of this") ... the way I'd describe it is that he comes across as if he learned English from Rudyard Kipling. It's interesting to discern what is likely his past influence on the current culture of nonduality. What he says about seeking and systems, in particular, is all very "neo Advaita", and also, in my opinion, completely crystal clear. What he says about authority, observation and self-discovery is exactly what ZD was referring to in his response to xanderJay here about how seekers are told to find out for themselves rather than rely on belief. What J.K. says about experience is very much related to E's insistence (related to a point that Reefs used to make) that experience can't ultimately tell you anything about what you really are and what you can eventually discover in (what J.K. calls) the meditation. In the final analysis, I differ on J.K's equation of sanity and rationality. It's not that I don't see the value of rationality, especially in terms of what would be the early stages of a process of seeing the false as false and becoming conscious of the content of our minds and our past conditioning. But, like experience, rationality is ultimately limited. J.K. had some interesting things to say about "seer and seen", and that dichotomy also applies to the rationalist, as at the root of every rational thought is the thinker and the content of the mind. I'm not advocating the embrace of irrational notions or unprovable theories and beliefs, but rather, the throwing away of what for me was the last crutch of the mind. I can also see his influence on what you wrote about meditation a few years back now. The practice ideas are really pure gold. "We're talking about something very very difficult. How to bring about order without control." gave me a powerful deja vu for the "Effortlessness" thread. Like all of us his perspective is informed by his life. I'd opine that not everything he says about bitterness necessarily applies to everyone, and while I understand and see the value in the idea of standing alone, not everyone needs to reject all spiritual fellowship in order to find inner peace. It's enough to see how that fellowship can lead to the distortion he's warning about. His point about pleasure and pain is also quite clear, but really, it's enough to see the see-saw for what it is. After all, it's never really possible to get off of it for as long as we're alive. Getting to a neutral state by self-discipline can put one in an auspicious place, but ultimately, it's unsustainable. This isn't to say that someone can't maintain that state for a long period of time, but the peace they find will be conditional, while the inner peace that J.K. was alluding to, is very much related to what is pointed to by the idea of "the unconditioned", or, "the absolute", if you will. The 'murt is my favorite speaker. I like others, but ol' 'murti, is more articulate than anyone else. More rebellious, really. His signature speech, 'The Truth is a Pathless Land' is the one that hooked me, and listened to a lot of his youtubes since, and read his book, 'Freedom from the Known' which was pretty insightful in my social work context apart from being a spiritual work. His 'observation' was a precise account of my own meditations. Though I learned my approach formally as Buddhist vipassana, the premises are the same as JK's, just to look and know, without doing anything 'additional'. My own meditative process was the process of eliminating (throwing away) anything that is unnecessary, which as it turned out, was anything I did myself. It kinda goes without saying that observation is 'concept free', but not so apparent that the 'activity of meditating' is just nonsense teachers use to maintain their 'meditation masters' positions. For example, what would be a TM teacher without their fabrication mantra? if a person wants to meditate, first stop generating the mantra. I say, whatever you are doing volitionally, don't do that. The breath is a good example because no one has to 'do' it. Then the meditation master will say 'breath deeply', 'breath into belly', 'breath in for 5 and out for 7', 'imagine prana lights', 'start counting up to ten breaths'. The meditation master needs the student to obey, so they need to give them something to 'do', and because the student is craving a false promise, they are convinced they will get a reward, and before long they can't stop their doing because of the false hope they have invested in these means to an end. Teehee, what is there wasn't a beginning, and there is no end? Who would bother doing what they are not already doing? More to the point, why is one doing what they are are doing? What motive, what intent, what volition actually drives the incessant activity in every urge to move one's mind? You might notice that this inquiry of mine has no instruction, to do, and one would have to take pause and investigate, stop and look, to become conscious of what impels and indeed compels them, and in regards to the 'rewards' I mentioned, one would see they are impelled by desire, want, and the associated sense of lack. Now we start to get to the truth of oneself, don't we? Start to understand things insightfully. Ok, let us imagine we are such a person inquiring thus, and then we sit and practice mantra? Is it not now impossible to continue the previous inquiry? Of course, we can't see sh!t because one simply can't stop and look and 'do' stuff at the same time. One can't be volitional and non-volitional at once, and it is necessary to stop in order to look as observation sees without 'doing anything'. That would sound like a JK narrative, but my narrative is the non-volitional fundamental of vipassana, and my own meditative process of removing the unnecessary - which is everything I 'do'. So, in my case it is impossible for me to practice out of wanting, as I already see the wanting, my meditation is prior as that which knows all arisings, all motives, and all doings. It therefore can't begin, and therefore can't be done. It is already conscious awareness as per the mind/body senses, and as the 'knower of this', I am certain without knowing anything about anything. Therein lies the mystery... and hence your concepts serve their functions, and like tools have good use, but like tools are void of any 'truth'. End rant.Your rants are getting less emotional Sir.. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 10, 2017 9:21:28 GMT -5
The 'murt is my favorite speaker. I like others, but ol' 'murti, is more articulate than anyone else. More rebellious, really. His signature speech, 'The Truth is a Pathless Land' is the one that hooked me, and listened to a lot of his youtubes since, and read his book, 'Freedom from the Known' which was pretty insightful in my social work context apart from being a spiritual work. His 'observation' was a precise account of my own meditations. Though I learned my approach formally as Buddhist vipassana, the premises are the same as JK's, just to look and know, without doing anything 'additional'. My own meditative process was the process of eliminating (throwing away) anything that is unnecessary, which as it turned out, was anything I did myself. It kinda goes without saying that observation is 'concept free', but not so apparent that the 'activity of meditating' is just nonsense teachers use to maintain their 'meditation masters' positions. For example, what would be a TM teacher without their fabrication mantra? if a person wants to meditate, first stop generating the mantra. I say, whatever you are doing volitionally, don't do that. The breath is a good example because no one has to 'do' it. Then the meditation master will say 'breath deeply', 'breath into belly', 'breath in for 5 and out for 7', 'imagine prana lights', 'start counting up to ten breaths'. The meditation master needs the student to obey, so they need to give them something to 'do', and because the student is craving a false promise, they are convinced they will get a reward, and before long they can't stop their doing because of the false hope they have invested in these means to an end. Teehee, what is there wasn't a beginning, and there is no end? Who would bother doing what they are not already doing? More to the point, why is one doing what they are are doing? What motive, what intent, what volition actually drives the incessant activity in every urge to move one's mind? You might notice that this inquiry of mine has no instruction, to do, and one would have to take pause and investigate, stop and look, to become conscious of what impels and indeed compels them, and in regards to the 'rewards' I mentioned, one would see they are impelled by desire, want, and the associated sense of lack. Now we start to get to the truth of oneself, don't we? Start to understand things insightfully. Ok, let us imagine we are such a person inquiring thus, and then we sit and practice mantra? Is it not now impossible to continue the previous inquiry? Of course, we can't see sh!t because one simply can't stop and look and 'do' stuff at the same time. One can't be volitional and non-volitional at once, and it is necessary to stop in order to look as observation sees without 'doing anything'. That would sound like a JK narrative, but my narrative is the non-volitional fundamental of vipassana, and my own meditative process of removing the unnecessary - which is everything I 'do'. So, in my case it is impossible for me to practice out of wanting, as I already see the wanting, my meditation is prior as that which knows all arisings, all motives, and all doings. It therefore can't begin, and therefore can't be done. It is already conscious awareness as per the mind/body senses, and as the 'knower of this', I am certain without knowing anything about anything. Therein lies the mystery... and hence your concepts serve their functions, and like tools have good use, but like tools are void of any 'truth'. End rant.Your rants are getting less emotional Sir.. I'm a hack bot. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2017 21:45:08 GMT -5
ok ok allright allright ... but seriously, isn't what makes this sound " mystical" a genuine mystery? Can't it be expressed as, "what is consciousness?". Yes, it's a mystery. Even to ask 'what it is' is only secondary to it being in the first place, so the scientific inquiry into consciousness, at least as scientific inquiry is currently defined, can only measure properties of matter which are quantifiable, after the fact of the experience itself... and the only possible outcome is the ever changing epistemology that is used to 'make sense' of our experience. When Fry says he believes in the enlightenment, by which he means empiricism, he must understand the changing paradigms that entails. The main issue with the Church is hardly a moral one as it is the Churche's function in upholding an 'unchanging story'. I mean, if the story changes that must mean they were wrong! Right? teehee. If there is one cool thing about science, it can be wrong, it often is, and the paradigm is at least somewhat free to change. Those scientists who understand what you've expressed here ultimately converge with a fundamental spiritual pointer: there will always be a mystery. An "unchanging story" can, at it's worst, simply play on the very natural human anxiety about and unease of the unknown, in that the story is offered and accepted as a way to temporarily alleviate that fear. To cover it up and suppress it. There's a flip side to spirituality though. Guys who give high-level military briefings have this cute little cliche'd metaphor about a pony and a pile of horsesh!t. What we are -- what consciousness is -- can be found. Self-inquiry does have an answer, just not one that's either objective or subjective. The mystery is still there afterwards, but there's no uncertainty or curiosity about this question any longer. The natural anxiety of existential dread will continue for as long as a person is identified -- consciously or otherwise -- with anything that comes and goes. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 11, 2017 23:41:38 GMT -5
Yes, it's a mystery. Even to ask 'what it is' is only secondary to it being in the first place, so the scientific inquiry into consciousness, at least as scientific inquiry is currently defined, can only measure properties of matter which are quantifiable, after the fact of the experience itself... and the only possible outcome is the ever changing epistemology that is used to 'make sense' of our experience. When Fry says he believes in the enlightenment, by which he means empiricism, he must understand the changing paradigms that entails. The main issue with the Church is hardly a moral one as it is the Churche's function in upholding an 'unchanging story'. I mean, if the story changes that must mean they were wrong! Right? teehee. If there is one cool thing about science, it can be wrong, it often is, and the paradigm is at least somewhat free to change. Those scientists who understand what you've expressed here ultimately converge with a fundamental spiritual pointer: there will always be a mystery. An "unchanging story" can, at it's worst, simply play on the very natural human anxiety about and unease of the unknown, in that the story is offered and accepted as a way to temporarily alleviate that fear. To cover it up and suppress it. There's a flip side to spirituality though. Guys who give high-level military briefings have this cute little cliche'd metaphor about a pony and a pile of horsesh!t. What we are -- what consciousness is -- can be found. Self-inquiry does have an answer, just not one that's either objective or subjective. The mystery is still there afterwards, but there's no uncertainty or curiosity about this question any longer. The natural anxiety of existential dread will continue for as long as a person is identified -- consciously or otherwise -- with anything that comes and goes. What I call a certainty, like 'this is happening' (without the words), entails no knowledge, as knowledge is produced post observation, never during, and by knowledge I mean that which can be acquired, remembered and known as information. That is the nature of answers known. I think what you refer to is certainty of the every receding mystery which can't be reduced to acquirable information. That marks the scientific limitation, which signifies the limitation of intellect. Yet somehow there is certainty, which isn't altogether subjective in terms of the truth common to all conscious beings. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2017 7:32:46 GMT -5
Those scientists who understand what you've expressed here ultimately converge with a fundamental spiritual pointer: there will always be a mystery. An "unchanging story" can, at it's worst, simply play on the very natural human anxiety about and unease of the unknown, in that the story is offered and accepted as a way to temporarily alleviate that fear. To cover it up and suppress it. There's a flip side to spirituality though. Guys who give high-level military briefings have this cute little cliche'd metaphor about a pony and a pile of horsesh!t. What we are -- what consciousness is -- can be found. Self-inquiry does have an answer, just not one that's either objective or subjective. The mystery is still there afterwards, but there's no uncertainty or curiosity about this question any longer. The natural anxiety of existential dread will continue for as long as a person is identified -- consciously or otherwise -- with anything that comes and goes. What I call a certainty, like 'this is happening' (without the words), entails no knowledge, as knowledge is produced post observation, never during, and by knowledge I mean that which can be acquired, remembered and known as information. That is the nature of answers known. I think what you refer to is certainty of the every receding mystery which can't be reduced to acquirable information. That marks the scientific limitation, which signifies the limitation of intellect. Yet somehow there is certainty, which isn't altogether subjective in terms of the truth common to all conscious beings. Yes, that describes the certainty and the limit quite well, definitely at least as well as I've ever done with my best shot. |
|
No, not necessarily. What I wrote was completely in jest. There's this sentiment I have that most people with an interest in channeling the dead have an underlying fear of death. I see this very clearly as an artifact of my past conditioning. The exact conditioning I just described to you. 
