|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 10:04:55 GMT -5
Why do you choose to do that? It's ugly and serves no purpose. Nonvolition doesn't mean you can't choose. If you don't believe me, pay attention the next time you make a choice, which should be in a second or two. Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact. I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 10:22:25 GMT -5
That said, my gabweasel flip-side opinion about this is that there's really not much difference between an enlightened peep who thinks that they're now forever free of intolerable pain and a perpetugastic giraffe-herder. Yes, no real difference. And both not SR related.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 10:30:15 GMT -5
'Good' non-duality? yeah, as opposed to mickey mouse non-duality that sometimes blags its way onto the amazon book charts Okay, more like fake non-duality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 10:34:52 GMT -5
"As long as you identify yourself with your body and mind, you are bound to suffer; realize your independence and remain happy" Nisargadatta Didn't mean to imply that SR folks don't believe other folks don't suffer. Only that once you believe (know) you are not the mind or body, suffering ends. But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... Yes. There is nothing that we are not including suffering? There is no subject/object dichotomy, but having said that I create a subject/object dichotomy. Truthfully, Reefs, I'm just here cause I like to hear myself sound "wise." Hope that doesn't offend you or anyone else. It's only about me.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 11:00:42 GMT -5
SR is the end of existential suffering. Alignment is the end of psychological suffering. Well, the way I see it SR is the definitive and permanent end of what's at the centerpoint of the psychological attachments that can always be found at the root of psychological suffering. Tolle used a wheel as a metaphor for what can happen, and I think he likely got it from some other Advaita source. It's like a wheel that breaks off it's axle and keeps rolling on momentum. Now, whatever that period after SR has to do with alignment is what it is, but the distinction between alignment and realization is between the relative and the non-relative. Realized and unrealized people alike are interested in the relative effects of realization, and there's unlikely to ever be a broad consensus on that precisely because there's no way of caging the wind. The only realization Tolle wrote about is one that's relevant to what I think of as awakening, as opposed to anything permanent. He only writes about sudden and dramatic shifts in terms of his own story, and as far I as know he never talks or writes directly about SR in the way some of us do on this forum. Whatever positive assertions someone makes about "life after SR" are generalities that can't possibly apply to everyone who realizes the existential truth, but as what we're talking about is a loss, it's definitely possible to say what is absent from that life. Persistent psychological pain just can't happen to someone who's really realized what it is that's feeling that pain. To me psychological suffering is just another word for the emotions at the bottom of the emotional scale. The entire emotional scale will still be available post SR as it was at birth. Is it possible for the baby to experience the bottom of the emotional scale? I'd say yes. Is it likely? No. Now replace baby with SR dude/dudette.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 11:14:58 GMT -5
The context here is pictures/videos. Which is second hand experience, not direct experience. right, though even when watching someone suffering in a movie, in which we know fine well they are acting, it can still be powerful for people watching, because the actor is connecting to that aspect of themselves that knows suffering. So even though the acting is fake in one obvious way, it is real in the sense that they are still connecting to a particular aspect of their humanity. I guess that's why movies are popular, the context of watching the film allows humans to connect to aspects of themselves which they don't readily allow themselves to have. Yeah, it's all about focus. That's why I am saying you can focus yourself into suffering or into bliss. However, if you are consistently grounded in well-being, those emotions on the lower end of the emotional scale won't be readily available anymore. And people who mostly hang out in that lower range won't show up in your experience anymore, be it in real life or movies or just by hearsay. So just look around at what's manifesting in your life and you'll get a pretty accurate picture of your actual state of being in terms of consistent emotional range.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 11:16:05 GMT -5
Yeah, maybe we should try a different approach. Instead of defining suffering directly, do it indirectly via its opposite. What is the opposite of suffering? Maybe we can find some common ground there. Ease and well-being are the two words which spring to mind most readily. Yeah, that will work. Thriving came to mind here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 11:20:06 GMT -5
What does it even mean to say 'the energy has to play itself out'? YOU are playing it out because you want to be on the forum and you don't. Since you don't want to make one choice and let the other one go, there is a 'mild suffering involved' and a need to blame your childish wants on 'an energy that needs to play out'. He is talking about momentum. You can't just make a u-turn when you are going 100 mph. It's also the reason why temp bans don't work. Momentum is a good word.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 2, 2018 11:24:01 GMT -5
Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact. I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R For me, no. The energy to argue the problems of solipsism has largely burned out, and the momentum to even read what's happening over there has fallen away. Nevertheless, I am triggered on the subject still, so if it comes up here, I will likely respond. As yet, I believe I have only commented as a response, I haven't raised the subject. Though if you want to move anything that has been said over to a new thread, I have no problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 11:26:35 GMT -5
Well, that's a good example. The psychological suffering depends on focus. You can focus yourself into joy as well as into suffering. So the cure for psychological suffering is alignment. Which is a moment to moment thing. The existential suffering doesn't depend on focus. The cure for existential suffering is SR. Which is a one time event. I agree that SR would have to be the cure for existential suffering. Could you give an example of psychological suffering that would be applicable to a non-SR individual, and also to an SR individual? For example, 'it shouldn't rain at the weekend' might be a form of psychological suffering, right? What I call psychological suffering are the emotions at the end of the emotional scale, like hopelessness. Depending on what rain at the weekend implies to you personally, that's usually just slightly below the neutral point on that scale (contentment), probably irritation or disappointment, worry at most.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 2, 2018 11:32:35 GMT -5
But that's not what we usually call a 'person' around here. Persons are illusions and illusions can't suffer. That's a hard pill for me to swallow, as over 7 billion people on earth, suffer. You are probably using person and ego interchangeably. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:33:11 GMT -5
Your post explains everything. (If you can't do other than what you do, there is no choice involved). What I said was in no way nasty, just a fact. I agree, it wasn't nasty. This comes from somewhere else. @ Andrew & Enigma, I noticed there's some spillover from gab happening here. I just checked. The dates match. Obviously the solipsism issue hasn't been resolved over there so it resurfaces again in a different way over here (as unresolved issues tend to do). If you want to continue your solipsism vs. non-duality discussion here (which is an interesting topic, I must admit) then you can do that, but in a separate thread. If this thread should get too far off topic I'll make that decision for you and move out some posts into a new thread. So let me know what you prefer. R Thanks. (I am reminded of the Hubble Space Telescope going into orbit, the first pictures were a disaster. They had never tested the telescope on earth. The instrument they used to test the curve of the telescope mirrors, was itself faulty, it didn't show up the ever so slightly misshapen curve of the Hubble mirrors. The first pictures were out of focus. At first they thought they just now had a piece of junk in space, but correcting mirrors were invented and made to correct the incorrect Hubble mirrors. An exceptionally difficult mission was planned, and after quite some passage of time was carried off with success installing the correcting mirrors. The point of the story, we knew what the galaxies were supposed to look like, and when they didn't, we knew there was an error in telescope making, the error was found and corrected. But, we don't know what the final ~picture of the universe~ is supposed to ~look like~ (ontologically). IOW, we can never trust another's view, we have to find our own. IOW, we don't know if their ~error discovering instrument~, is perfectly made, or not. And furthermore, a new telescope is being built which will supersede the Hubble, be able to look more deeply into space, maybe even see the Big Bang).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 2, 2018 11:33:30 GMT -5
Well I would say it must identify a carrot and identify another bunny, otherwise it would try and mate with a carrot and eat a bunny .. or it may simply not see any difference between either . If you acknowledge sameness and difference then one must identify that in reflection of how you perceive yourself . yes I agree, I'm just saying the way the bunny identifies isn't as sophisticated or highly developed as it is for humans. Hence humans are able to wonder who they are and where they come from etc Yes
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:34:28 GMT -5
But then again, as Ramana says, both the sage and the seeker say 'I am the body'... Yes. There is nothing that we are not including suffering? There is no subject/object dichotomy, but having said that I create a subject/object dichotomy. Truthfully, Reefs, I'm just here cause I like to hear myself sound "wise." Hope that doesn't offend you or anyone else. It's only about me.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 2, 2018 11:35:55 GMT -5
That's a hard pill for me to swallow, as over 7 billion people on earth, suffer. You are probably using person and ego interchangeably. I don't. No, but I would say ego is the illusion.
|
|