|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:42:51 GMT -5
It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ) kant .. stop ... laughing .... please send ........ P.T. Barnum!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:50:32 GMT -5
It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ) Not at all. It's not irrational. Realization is itself ultimately not a claim or a belief, so it's not something that can be classified as rational or irrational. The philosophy surrounding it can of course be criticized, but on those grounds the philosophy supporting the idea of realization has IMO impeccable claims to the very highest rationality, far superior to materialism. And those are the grounds on which any claims about realization and its possibility must be judged: as philosophical claims... philosophical claims do not have the same truth criteria as scientific claims. And science itself rests on many philosophical claims which cannot themselves be proved by science (because of the circularity involved). Well said, but a world view un/subconsciously based in rational thought can have a blind spot about what seems to the individual to be irrational. You see, it seems to me that what you told the guy who asked about beliefs is an answer that's appropriate for VERY late-stage inquiry, if not even better left as a later informing of mind. A stack of rational explanations can form the basis for a false sense of identity. I can relate this to personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Feb 8, 2024 6:51:49 GMT -5
It's not possible to ask them because it's a kind of sexual influence. So what? Of course you can ask people whether they experienced a sudden surge of sexual attraction. Whattttttttttt? I can't for sure. But I know for sure. If you do it from your end, you can know for sure because their reaction followed by your thought.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:59:00 GMT -5
Not at all. It's not irrational. Realization is itself ultimately not a claim or a belief, so it's not something that can be classified as rational or irrational. The philosophy surrounding it can of course be criticized, but on those grounds the philosophy supporting the idea of realization has IMO impeccable claims to the very highest rationality, far superior to materialism. And those are the grounds on which any claims about realization and its possibility must be judged: as philosophical claims... philosophical claims do not have the same truth criteria as scientific claims. And science itself rests on many philosophical claims which cannot themselves be proved by science (because of the circularity involved). Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis. See now, I'm with you that what seems irrational might be an interesting and potentially opportunistic hint to someone with a rational mind set. But let me try to bridge to some degree here: sifty draws a distinction between physics (science) and meta-physics (philosophy). I've heard him, in his pointing, saying what can be described as an echo of the Heart and Diamond sutras, in disclaiming that realization is even a thing. But yet, his profession is premised on an interest in realization. For the unrealized, the interest can only be philosophical. It's similar to how in TAV they teach a provisional sense of "I", that they disclaim from the start. To bring this back to the point of the reply, I think that we would both agree that this is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2024 12:20:30 GMT -5
Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis. See now, I'm with you that what seems irrational might be an interesting and potentially opportunistic hint to someone with a rational mind set. But let me try to bridge to some degree here: sifty draws a distinction between physics (science) and meta-physics (philosophy). I've heard him, in his pointing, saying what can be described as an echo of the Heart and Diamond sutras, in disclaiming that realization is even a thing. But yet, his profession is premised on an interest in realization. For the unrealized, the interest can only be philosophical. It's similar to how in TAV they teach a provisional sense of "I", that they disclaim from the start. To bring this back to the point of the reply, I think that we would both agree that this is irrational. From the bit I've seen, it has looked to me as if Sifty considers 'realization' a thing, though he may also have qualified (and softened) it by saying it is an 'apparent' thing. Maybe he could clarify that. But I just don't think there's any getting away from the 'woo-woo' nature of non-duality. We dress it up as 'Truth', which makes it sound important (and perhaps more objective than it is). But the only reason it differs from religion is that we aren't realizing a 'separate thing' (that has all sorts of conditions and judgements). Our 'woowoo' is much simpler.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2024 14:10:04 GMT -5
Not at all. It's not irrational. Realization is itself ultimately not a claim or a belief, so it's not something that can be classified as rational or irrational. The philosophy surrounding it can of course be criticized, but on those grounds the philosophy supporting the idea of realization has IMO impeccable claims to the very highest rationality, far superior to materialism. And those are the grounds on which any claims about realization and its possibility must be judged: as philosophical claims... philosophical claims do not have the same truth criteria as scientific claims. And science itself rests on many philosophical claims which cannot themselves be proved by science (because of the circularity involved). Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis. Realization is not a claim like that. It is an anti-claim of sorts. It's a claim that immediately contradicts itself. It is at the very breakdown of language to represent. That's why Ramana says, for example, at the end of his 40 verses: "If it is said that Liberation is of three kids, with form or without form or with and without form, then let me tell you that the extinction of three forms of Liberation is the only true Liberation."
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2024 14:48:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2024 15:07:57 GMT -5
Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis. Realization is not a claim like that. It is an anti-claim of sorts. It's a claim that immediately contradicts itself. It is at the very breakdown of language to represent. That's why Ramana says, for example, at the end of his 40 verses: "If it is said that Liberation is of three kids, with form or without form or with and without form, then let me tell you that the extinction of three forms of Liberation is the only true Liberation." I agree there is an oddity (or paradox) to the claim, but it's still a claim (or 'anti-claim' as you said)
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2024 15:12:16 GMT -5
Realization is not a claim like that. It is an anti-claim of sorts. It's a claim that immediately contradicts itself. It is at the very breakdown of language to represent. That's why Ramana says, for example, at the end of his 40 verses: "If it is said that Liberation is of three kids, with form or without form or with and without form, then let me tell you that the extinction of three forms of Liberation is the only true Liberation." I agree there is an oddity (or paradox) to the claim, but it's still a claim (or 'anti-claim' as you said) No, it's not. Not really. The claim is intrinsically self-defeating, something like (though not exactly the same) saying: "I am a liar." It's extremely different from any claim of any actual woo.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2024 15:40:54 GMT -5
I agree there is an oddity (or paradox) to the claim, but it's still a claim (or 'anti-claim' as you said) No, it's not. Not really. The claim is intrinsically self-defeating, something like (though not exactly the same) saying: "I am a liar." It's extremely different from any claim of any actual woo. I disagree. I could agree that it's a 'non'-claim, but still a claim nevertheless. If you are actively pointing to 'Self' (which I've seen you do), you are participating and engaging with the 'non-claim'. I do understand what you mean by 'self-defeating', but engaging with the 'self-defeating' nature of the claim, is making a claim. When you next offer a pointer, ask yourself....'what is my intention here? What claim am I making?'
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2024 18:04:37 GMT -5
No, it's not. Not really. The claim is intrinsically self-defeating, something like (though not exactly the same) saying: "I am a liar." It's extremely different from any claim of any actual woo. I disagree. I could agree that it's a 'non'-claim, but still a claim nevertheless. If you are actively pointing to 'Self' (which I've seen you do), you are participating and engaging with the 'non-claim'. I do understand what you mean by 'self-defeating', but engaging with the 'self-defeating' nature of the claim, is making a claim. When you next offer a pointer, ask yourself....'what is my intention here? What claim am I making?' A pointer isn't a claim. It may be dressed up in the language of claims, but that's not what it is. When I say "Boo!" I may be trying to startle you, but I'm not making a claim.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2024 18:31:38 GMT -5
I disagree. I could agree that it's a 'non'-claim, but still a claim nevertheless. If you are actively pointing to 'Self' (which I've seen you do), you are participating and engaging with the 'non-claim'. I do understand what you mean by 'self-defeating', but engaging with the 'self-defeating' nature of the claim, is making a claim. When you next offer a pointer, ask yourself....'what is my intention here? What claim am I making?' A pointer isn't a claim. It may be dressed up in the language of claims, but that's not what it is. When I say "Boo!" I may be trying to startle you, but I'm not making a claim. A few years ago, I suspect the movement to discuss this further would have been quite strong (I can feel inklings of it here and now) but I think I can respect the difference in point of view here, and I'll let it go (I'll take my energy to twitter instead....let's see what Carlson and Putin have to say )
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2024 22:00:33 GMT -5
Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis. Realization is not a claim like that. It is an anti-claim of sorts. It's a claim that immediately contradicts itself. It is at the very breakdown of language to represent. That's why Ramana says, for example, at the end of his 40 verses: " If it is said that Liberation is of three kids, with form or without form or with and without form, then let me tell you that the extinction of three forms of Liberation is the only true Liberation." It seems that Ramana says in that quote that he realized that the only Liberation is from the false belief that a Liberation of any kind would be needed. Realization isn't a claim. Saying that you (or another) had a realization is a claim. It doesn't matter what specifically is claimed. EDIT: - 39. Only so long as one considers oneself bound , do thoughts of bondage and liberation continue . When one enquires who is bound the Self is realized , eternally attained , and eternally free . When thought of bondage comes to an end , can thought of liberation survive?
- 40. If it is said , that liberation is of three kinds , with form or without form or with and without form , then let me tell you that the extinction of three forms of liberation is the only true Liberation.
EDIT: You can claim telepathically too.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2024 23:00:14 GMT -5
A pointer isn't a claim. It may be dressed up in the language of claims, but that's not what it is. When I say "Boo!" I may be trying to startle you, but I'm not making a claim. A few years ago, I suspect the movement to discuss this further would have been quite strong (I can feel inklings of it here and now) but I think I can respect the difference in point of view here, and I'll let it go
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 10, 2024 9:28:14 GMT -5
A pointer isn't a claim. It may be dressed up in the language of claims, but that's not what it is. When I say "Boo!" I may be trying to startle you, but I'm not making a claim. A few years ago, I suspect the movement to discuss this further would have been quite strong (I can feel inklings of it here and now) but I think I can respect the difference in point of view here, and I'll let it go (I'll take my energy to twitter instead....let's see what Carlson and Putin have to say ) Only caught a little of the interview on Russel Brands YouTube video this morning, I don't think nato - uk - usa and other European countries would like it if things were the other way round. Don't really trust the intentions of most governments anymore. Look at the Farmers revolting everywhere at the moment. Haven't really seen much news and it was the first I have heard of the troubles when my mate told me the other day.
|
|