|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 16, 2017 3:11:07 GMT -5
Methinks you already know the key to your answer lies with the underlined above. Well, yeah. It goes something like this. Enigma's proposition is everything is fine if I have neither attachement or repulsion to, I assume, everything. I extrapolate that this must also mean everything is not fine while folks are attached to the precepts of Advaita and repulsed by both alternate ideas and those that consider them. That subject is all academic though as I'm simply having a non-productive though enjoyable conversation with enigma as he avoid self examination of his relationship with Advaita. You may want to ponder a variation of your question: "what does that say about the folks who are attached to the belief that others are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality?" Is it a belief though. I think that hasn't been established. For starters, I think each person's definition of the term should be established. This also raises consideration of personal interpretation of reality, personal preferences, each individual's relationship with terminology, etc. While I currently see Adviata as just another belief system, just like any other religion or non-religious spiritual philosophy; a set of thoughts or precepts that describes the nature of reality, hence my previous statements about people who appear to me to be the same as any other religious folk, believing these thoughts are an accurate description of reality... ...while those that perceive themselves as Self Realised have a completely different understanding of the matter, and the two differing perceptions shall never meet, there can be no agreement. The thing that continues to fascinate me about religious folk, or anyone who believes something to be true, sitrhe very nature of believing and how they simply don't understand the delusion they place themselves in. For the act of believing is only activated upon experiences that can't be proved or the individual isn't interested in verifying. No one goes around saying they believe they're male or female, they know, the evidence is readily observable. But when it comes to ideas that can't be proved, the process of believing is utilised. And just because someone believes something to be true doesn't automatically make it so. Advaita cannot be proved to be accurate, hence the need for faith to accept it is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest what a person chooses to accept as truth. I just find it interesting to watch people spend so much time and effort proclaiming something to be true when they have zero evidence. Equally fascinating is watching people argue with them that they're wrong. I theorize that many religious folk feel secure in their respective beliefs because they have something far bigger than themselves to stand upon. They require something outside of themselves to dispel the mysteries of existence. Thus for many folks, they actually don't need the actual truth, they're satisfied with anything they choose to accept as truth. Hence so many different religions and spiritual philosophies. Who can I turn to when nobody needs me. My heart wants to know and so I must go where destiny leads me. With no stars to guide me and no one beside me. I go on my way and after the day the darkness will hide me. Maybe tomorrow, I'll find what I am after. I go on my sorrow beg still I borrow my share of laughter. If you I can turn to. If you on a new day. But who can I turn to if you turn away. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 16, 2017 4:37:10 GMT -5
Who can I turn to when nobody needs me. My heart wants to know and so I must go where destiny leads me. With no stars to guide me and no one beside me. I go on my way and after the day the darkness will hide me. Maybe tomorrow, I'll find what I am after. I go on my sorrow beg still I borrow my share of laughter. If you I can turn to. If you on a new day. But who can I turn to if you turn away. Aww, I thought you'd written an awesome post there. Great song though, thanks for that. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 16, 2017 17:12:31 GMT -5
Who can I turn to when nobody needs me. My heart wants to know and so I must go where destiny leads me. With no stars to guide me and no one beside me. I go on my way and after the day the darkness will hide me. Maybe tomorrow, I'll find what I am after. I go on my sorrow beg still I borrow my share of laughter. If you I can turn to. If you on a new day. But who can I turn to if you turn away. Aww, I thought you'd written an awesome post there. Great song though, thanks for that. You are welcome, Pete! It's been a long time seeing you round here. I kinda miss your bended spoon. 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 17, 2017 3:39:44 GMT -5
Out of curiosity I sent some emails to various people who have reportedly awakened, and asked them about their search for truth. I asked them to describe the various events that they think led to freedom. What I discovered is that some people find freedom as a result of giving up the search; some people find freedom as a result of SR; and some people find freedom as a result of both SR and CC experiences. One person claimed that freedom did not occur until after SR, after a CC experience, and after several years of burning off what he termed "residual egoic vasanas." The first category of people (those who lose interest in the search for truth or have some sort of insight that ends their search) do not seem to be what most of us would term SR. They seem to have concluded that the search, itself, is an intellectual phenomena that at some point does not deserve any further interest. When asked, "Who are you, really?" they will shrug their shoulders and say that the question is meaningless or holds no interest for them. They are no longer troubled by existential questions because they see all such questioning as pointless mental phenomena--thinking run amok. If people in the other categories are asked, "Who are you, really?", they will give definitive answers, such as "I am THAT," or "I am the cosmos." Or, they will say something like, "What I am cannot be imagined or spoken." Or, they will say, "There is only the Self, the Absolute, the Infinite. They seem to have a clear understanding that reality is a unified whole and that personal selfhood is a fiction--a set of ideas constituting a cartoon-like story. What's interesting is that all of the people I contacted felt free, and they were no longer searching for anything, but one group of people who wrote to me claimed to have found what they were looking for whereas the other group wrote that the search, itself, was pointless or useless--essentially a waste of time. Both groups seem content with everyday life just as it is, and I suspect that one would have to spend a fair amount of time with people in each group to see if there is any significant difference in the way they react to various life events. The reality is that the I, the me and you, is trapped inside this body. From birth to old age, we are struggling to survive. By doing meditation, we can escape from this body and go anywhere in our spiritual bodies. The process is called samadhi. We can also do samadhi or escape from this body by sleeping. It's in sleeping we dream. These dreams are the worlds our spiritual bodies gone to. When we wake up, we are back inside this body. Trapped. It becomes wishful thinking when we want using our minds go to places we never been before. Take this body away and off we go free. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 17, 2017 4:37:39 GMT -5
You are welcome, Pete! It's been a long time seeing you round here. I kinda miss your bended spoon. 😀 Oh I'm here, I just don't often have anything to say. I've also been tipping the wrong side of the work life balance scales....can no longer afford to spend half the morning trawling back through posts to work out what "he said she said". Not that that's been needed recently. I do think that Reef's appointment as moderator has resulted in a big improvement in the quality of discussion - thanks Reefs, good job! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2017 8:53:42 GMT -5
Out of curiosity I sent some emails to various people who have reportedly awakened, and asked them about their search for truth. I asked them to describe the various events that they think led to freedom. What I discovered is that some people find freedom as a result of giving up the search; some people find freedom as a result of SR; and some people find freedom as a result of both SR and CC experiences. One person claimed that freedom did not occur until after SR, after a CC experience, and after several years of burning off what he termed "residual egoic vasanas." The first category of people (those who lose interest in the search for truth or have some sort of insight that ends their search) do not seem to be what most of us would term SR. They seem to have concluded that the search, itself, is an intellectual phenomena that at some point does not deserve any further interest. When asked, "Who are you, really?" they will shrug their shoulders and say that the question is meaningless or holds no interest for them. They are no longer troubled by existential questions because they see all such questioning as pointless mental phenomena--thinking run amok. If people in the other categories are asked, "Who are you, really?", they will give definitive answers, such as "I am THAT," or "I am the cosmos." Or, they will say something like, "What I am cannot be imagined or spoken." Or, they will say, "There is only the Self, the Absolute, the Infinite. They seem to have a clear understanding that reality is a unified whole and that personal selfhood is a fiction--a set of ideas constituting a cartoon-like story. What's interesting is that all of the people I contacted felt free, and they were no longer searching for anything, but one group of people who wrote to me claimed to have found what they were looking for whereas the other group wrote that the search, itself, was pointless or useless--essentially a waste of time. Both groups seem content with everyday life just as it is, and I suspect that one would have to spend a fair amount of time with people in each group to see if there is any significant difference in the way they react to various life events. The reality is that the I, the me and you, is trapped inside this body. From birth to old age, we are struggling to survive. By doing meditation, we can escape from this body and go anywhere in our spiritual bodies. The process is called samadhi. We can also do samadhi or escape from this body by sleeping. It's in sleeping we dream. These dreams are the worlds our spiritual bodies gone to. When we wake up, we are back inside this body. Trapped. It becomes wishful thinking when we want using our minds go to places we never been before. Take this body away and off we go free. The reality is NOT that there is an I, or a me, or a you trapped inside a body. That's the fundamental illusion that every sage penetrates and becomes free of. We only think that we're trapped inside a body as long as the illusion remains in place. If we penetrate the illusion, we discover THAT which is not born and does not die and in which all bodies appear and disappear. Ramana encouraged people to do self inquiry--to search for the self that they imagine themselves to be. He encouraged this inquiry because he knew that if one searches for it, it will never be found. Why? Because it doesn't exist. What will be found, rather than a personal entity inside a body, is vast and unimaginable. May all beings find THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 17, 2017 10:48:06 GMT -5
The reality is that the I, the me and you, is trapped inside this body. From birth to old age, we are struggling to survive. By doing meditation, we can escape from this body and go anywhere in our spiritual bodies. The process is called samadhi. We can also do samadhi or escape from this body by sleeping. It's in sleeping we dream. These dreams are the worlds our spiritual bodies gone to. When we wake up, we are back inside this body. Trapped. It becomes wishful thinking when we want using our minds go to places we never been before. Take this body away and off we go free. The reality is NOT that there is an I, or a me, or a you trapped inside a body. That's the fundamental illusion that every sage penetrates and becomes free of. We only think that we're trapped inside a body as long as the illusion remains in place. If we penetrate the illusion, we discover THAT which is not born and does not die and in which all bodies appear and disappear. Ramana encouraged people to do self inquiry--to search for the self that they imagine themselves to be. He encouraged this inquiry because he knew that if one searches for it, it will never be found. Why? Because it doesn't exist. What will be found, rather than a personal entity inside a body, is vast and unimaginable. May all beings find THAT. Listened to a fascinating conversation this morning between two neuroscientist/philosophers, both long time meditators (one dzochen the other vipassana), both having seen through the illusion of selfhood. Amazing discussion! |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 17, 2017 10:51:27 GMT -5
Methinks you already know the key to your answer lies with the underlined above. Well, yeah. It goes something like this. Enigma's proposition is everything is fine if I have neither attachement or repulsion to, I assume, everything. I extrapolate that this must also mean everything is not fine while folks are attached to the precepts of Advaita and repulsed by both alternate ideas and those that consider them. That subject is all academic though as I'm simply having a non-productive though enjoyable conversation with enigma as he avoid self examination of his relationship with Advaita. You may want to ponder a variation of your question: "what does that say about the folks who are attached to the belief that others are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality?" Is it a belief though. I think that hasn't been established. For starters, I think each person's definition of the term should be established. This also raises consideration of personal interpretation of reality, personal preferences, each individual's relationship with terminology, etc. While I currently see Adviata as just another belief system, just like any other religion or non-religious spiritual philosophy; a set of thoughts or precepts that describes the nature of reality, hence my previous statements about people who appear to me to be the same as any other religious folk, believing these thoughts are an accurate description of reality... ...while those that perceive themselves as Self Realised have a completely different understanding of the matter, and the two differing perceptions shall never meet, there can be no agreement. The thing that continues to fascinate me about religious folk, or anyone who believes something to be true, sitrhe very nature of believing and how they simply don't understand the delusion they place themselves in. For the act of believing is only activated upon experiences that can't be proved or the individual isn't interested in verifying. No one goes around saying they believe they're male or female, they know, the evidence is readily observable. But when it comes to ideas that can't be proved, the process of believing is utilised. And just because someone believes something to be true doesn't automatically make it so. Advaita cannot be proved to be accurate, hence the need for faith to accept it is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest what a person chooses to accept as truth. I just find it interesting to watch people spend so much time and effort proclaiming something to be true when they have zero evidence. Equally fascinating is watching people argue with them that they're wrong. I theorize that many religious folk feel secure in their respective beliefs because they have something far bigger than themselves to stand upon. They require something outside of themselves to dispel the mysteries of existence. Thus for many folks, they actually don't need the actual truth, they're satisfied with anything they choose to accept as truth. Hence so many different religions and spiritual philosophies. You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 17, 2017 11:00:01 GMT -5
You are welcome, Pete! It's been a long time seeing you round here. I kinda miss your bended spoon. 😀 Oh I'm here, I just don't often have anything to say. I've also been tipping the wrong side of the work life balance scales....can no longer afford to spend half the morning trawling back through posts to work out what "he said she said". Not that that's been needed recently. I do think that Reef's appointment as moderator has resulted in a big improvement in the quality of discussion - thanks Reefs, good job! We need sometimes, without Reefs, some of your spoon-puts. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 17, 2017 11:17:59 GMT -5
The reality is that the I, the me and you, is trapped inside this body. From birth to old age, we are struggling to survive. By doing meditation, we can escape from this body and go anywhere in our spiritual bodies. The process is called samadhi. We can also do samadhi or escape from this body by sleeping. It's in sleeping we dream. These dreams are the worlds our spiritual bodies gone to. When we wake up, we are back inside this body. Trapped. It becomes wishful thinking when we want using our minds go to places we never been before. Take this body away and off we go free. The reality is NOT that there is an I, or a me, or a you trapped inside a body. That's the fundamental illusion that every sage penetrates and becomes free of. We only think that we're trapped inside a body as long as the illusion remains in place. If we penetrate the illusion, we discover THAT which is not born and does not die and in which all bodies appear and disappear. Ramana encouraged people to do self inquiry--to search for the self that they imagine themselves to be. He encouraged this inquiry because he knew that if one searches for it, it will never be found. Why? Because it doesn't exist. What will be found, rather than a personal entity inside a body, is vast and unimaginable. May all beings find THAT. You can not dissociate yourself from your body unless. of course. you commit hara kiri. I find it interesting the life of Yogananda Paramahansa. He was into Kriya yoga. He can at anytime go into samadhi. He can escape from his body and go to places he wants to go in his spiritual body. This is what bi-location means. You can be in this place and yet you can be seen in another place. What happened to Yoganandaji was prior to his giving a speech to an audience, he suffered a heart attack. Nobody knew if it was deliberate or not. He could have cause his heart to stop beating. Finally, releasing his self from the body and gone to that place he always dreamed of. Christ Jesus also did that. He feigned being a savior. When all the time he wanted to be killed. It was a promise from his Father. That if he is killed, the Son escapes from his body. Through resurrection. What I am trying to drive at is that the only way to become liberated is to experience death. Freedom of self means death to this body. One can not achieve that if one don`t experience death. This so-called CC experience/samadhi is when you see yourself out of the body. And what do you see and experience when out of the body? Brilliance and light, eternal joy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2017 11:45:10 GMT -5
Well, yeah. It goes something like this. Enigma's proposition is everything is fine if I have neither attachement or repulsion to, I assume, everything. I extrapolate that this must also mean everything is not fine while folks are attached to the precepts of Advaita and repulsed by both alternate ideas and those that consider them. That subject is all academic though as I'm simply having a non-productive though enjoyable conversation with enigma as he avoid self examination of his relationship with Advaita. Is it a belief though. I think that hasn't been established. For starters, I think each person's definition of the term should be established. This also raises consideration of personal interpretation of reality, personal preferences, each individual's relationship with terminology, etc. While I currently see Adviata as just another belief system, just like any other religion or non-religious spiritual philosophy; a set of thoughts or precepts that describes the nature of reality, hence my previous statements about people who appear to me to be the same as any other religious folk, believing these thoughts are an accurate description of reality... ...while those that perceive themselves as Self Realised have a completely different understanding of the matter, and the two differing perceptions shall never meet, there can be no agreement. The thing that continues to fascinate me about religious folk, or anyone who believes something to be true, sitrhe very nature of believing and how they simply don't understand the delusion they place themselves in. For the act of believing is only activated upon experiences that can't be proved or the individual isn't interested in verifying. No one goes around saying they believe they're male or female, they know, the evidence is readily observable. But when it comes to ideas that can't be proved, the process of believing is utilised. And just because someone believes something to be true doesn't automatically make it so. Advaita cannot be proved to be accurate, hence the need for faith to accept it is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest what a person chooses to accept as truth. I just find it interesting to watch people spend so much time and effort proclaiming something to be true when they have zero evidence. Equally fascinating is watching people argue with them that they're wrong. I theorize that many religious folk feel secure in their respective beliefs because they have something far bigger than themselves to stand upon. They require something outside of themselves to dispel the mysteries of existence. Thus for many folks, they actually don't need the actual truth, they're satisfied with anything they choose to accept as truth. Hence so many different religions and spiritual philosophies. You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. Have you ever considered the differences between neti-neti and science? Critical thinking and skepticism put "not"'s in front of beliefs. With a very few exceptions, most of these disbeliefs aren't simply dispelling a myth, but instead replace myth with fact: the old theory is discredited by the new one that matches the observations and can best concord with related understandings. So scientists and other folks who adopt a critical, skeptical frame of mind have the highest quality set of beliefs by any evidence-driven metric, but they aren't without beliefs. The absence of existential belief requires a completely different orientation towards the senses and the content of our minds. It might not seem to theirself as though a person has an assumption or belief underlying their outlook and actions on life, the world, and themselves, but sometimes they make it quite obvious to onlookers that this is the case. Conversely, anyone who would point that out to them would have no choice but to make statements that would create the appearance that they are the ones with an assumption or belief.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 17, 2017 13:04:17 GMT -5
Methinks you already know the key to your answer lies with the underlined above. Well, yeah. It goes something like this. Enigma's proposition is everything is fine if I have neither attachement or repulsion to, I assume, everything. I extrapolate that this must also mean everything is not fine while folks are attached to the precepts of Advaita and repulsed by both alternate ideas and those that consider them. That subject is all academic though as I'm simply having a non-productive though enjoyable conversation with enigma as he avoid self examination of his relationship with Advaita.You may want to ponder a variation of your question: "what does that say about the folks who are attached to the belief that others are attached to the belief that Advaita is the absolute truth about reality?" Is it a belief though. I think that hasn't been established. For starters, I think each person's definition of the term should be established. This also raises consideration of personal interpretation of reality, personal preferences, each individual's relationship with terminology, etc. While I currently see Adviata as just another belief system, just like any other religion or non-religious spiritual philosophy; a set of thoughts or precepts that describes the nature of reality, hence my previous statements about people who appear to me to be the same as any other religious folk, believing these thoughts are an accurate description of reality... ...while those that perceive themselves as Self Realised have a completely different understanding of the matter, and the two differing perceptions shall never meet, there can be no agreement. The thing that continues to fascinate me about religious folk, or anyone who believes something to be true, sitrhe very nature of believing and how they simply don't understand the delusion they place themselves in. For the act of believing is only activated upon experiences that can't be proved or the individual isn't interested in verifying. No one goes around saying they believe they're male or female, they know, the evidence is readily observable. But when it comes to ideas that can't be proved, the process of believing is utilised. And just because someone believes something to be true doesn't automatically make it so. Advaita cannot be proved to be accurate, hence the need for faith to accept it is. Doesn't bother me in the slightest what a person chooses to accept as truth. I just find it interesting to watch people spend so much time and effort proclaiming something to be true when they have zero evidence. Equally fascinating is watching people argue with them that they're wrong. I theorize that many religious folk feel secure in their respective beliefs because they have something far bigger than themselves to stand upon. They require something outside of themselves to dispel the mysteries of existence. Thus for many folks, they actually don't need the actual truth, they're satisfied with anything they choose to accept as truth. Hence so many different religions and spiritual philosophies. Okay, lets explore that relationship a bit. I've never read a book about Advaita or by a teacher of Advaita, nor have I studied it in depth anywhere. I've read some articles online, watched some youtubes, and enjoyed the comments and quotes from peeps on this forum and others. You'll notice I rarely talk about the teachers or quote from them here. Now you know why. So, what is my relationship to Advaita? It's basically a no-thing to me, though the teachings do seem to align quite well with what I see for myself, and I enjoy talking about it and listening to what others have to say. Apparently, this whole notion of being an attached believer is merely a focus for your animosity, the true source of which is unclear because I don't remember much about you and almost nothing of our previous conversations. Your relationship with me, whatever you perceive that to be, is the relationship that should really be explored, though I don't particularly want to be involved in that exploration. In any event, the best of luck to you. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 17, 2017 13:24:25 GMT -5
You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. Have you ever considered the differences between neti-neti and science? Critical thinking and skepticism put "not"'s in front of beliefs. With a very few exceptions, most of these disbeliefs aren't simply dispelling a myth, but instead replace myth with fact: the old theory is discredited by the new one that matches the observations and can best concord with related understandings. So scientists and other folks who adopt a critical, skeptical frame of mind have the highest quality set of beliefs by any evidence-driven metric, but they aren't without beliefs. The absence of existential belief requires a completely different orientation towards the senses and the content of our minds. It might not seem to theirself as though a person has an assumption or belief underlying their outlook and actions on life, the world, and themselves, but sometimes they make it quite obvious to onlookers that this is the case. Conversely, anyone who would point that out to them would have no choice but to make statements that would create the appearance that they are the ones with an assumption or belief. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 17, 2017 13:25:43 GMT -5
You are welcome, Pete! It's been a long time seeing you round here. I kinda miss your bended spoon. 😀 Oh I'm here, I just don't often have anything to say. I've also been tipping the wrong side of the work life balance scales....can no longer afford to spend half the morning trawling back through posts to work out what "he said she said". Not that that's been needed recently. I do think that Reef's appointment as moderator has resulted in a big improvement in the quality of discussion - thanks Reefs, good job! It has, and for that I'm thankful. It has also created a permanent rift in our spiritual 'family' for which I am a bit dismayed. The irony is not unlike that of the family gathering around the table at Thanksgiving, for which we are mostly thankful that it only happens once a year. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 17, 2017 14:22:07 GMT -5
The reality is NOT that there is an I, or a me, or a you trapped inside a body. That's the fundamental illusion that every sage penetrates and becomes free of. We only think that we're trapped inside a body as long as the illusion remains in place. If we penetrate the illusion, we discover THAT which is not born and does not die and in which all bodies appear and disappear. Ramana encouraged people to do self inquiry--to search for the self that they imagine themselves to be. He encouraged this inquiry because he knew that if one searches for it, it will never be found. Why? Because it doesn't exist. What will be found, rather than a personal entity inside a body, is vast and unimaginable. May all beings find THAT. You can not dissociate yourself from your body unless. of course. you commit hara kiri. I find it interesting the life of Yogananda Paramahansa. He was into Kriya yoga. He can at anytime go into samadhi. He can escape from his body and go to places he wants to go in his spiritual body. This is what bi-location means. You can be in this place and yet you can be seen in another place. What happened to Yoganandaji was prior to his giving a speech to an audience, he suffered a heart attack. Nobody knew if it was deliberate or not. He could have cause his heart to stop beating. Finally, releasing his self from the body and gone to that place he always dreamed of. Christ Jesus also did that. He feigned being a savior. When all the time he wanted to be killed. It was a promise from his Father. That if he is killed, the Son escapes from his body. Through resurrection. What I am trying to drive at is that the only way to become liberated is to experience death. Freedom of self means death to this body. One can not achieve that if one don`t experience death. This so-called CC experience/samadhi is when you see yourself out of the body. And what do you see and experience when out of the body? Brilliance and light, eternal joy. What I'm pointing to has nothing to do with either samadhi or a CC experience; it is the direct realization that selfhood (the "me") is a colossal illusion, and the discovery of what remains when that illusion collapses. This has nothing to do with disassociating from the body; it is realizing the infinite isness that the body appears within. |
|
