|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 12:48:17 GMT -5
Reincarnation is essentially a non-issue, it's very complicated. The self we consider ourselves to be, the small s self, doesn't reincarnate, it dies in the Bardo. Our unprocessed energy gets another go, but 99.999% of people have zero direct knowledge or experience of 'who/what' incarnates. A completely new cultural self is formed upon incarnation. So, in one sense there is no reincarnation and in another sense, there is. Why is it a non-issue? "Liberation" occurs in only-one-particular-life. In a certain sense it is a timeless phenomenon, time is a factor, until it isn't. Basically, all the energy of the samskaras and the vasanas has to be transformed. Until that occurs the journey is not over. We can live in imagination and think the journey has ended... Hi SDP, I'm curious, what makes you think the underlined part? Do you feel you know for sure, or is it more a hunch of what you think might be true? I'm of course curious what happens after death, what happens to "me" (the "me" that feels like an individual being, but may not exist, if I believe the previews of 'truth' from non-dual teachers). But I'm skeptical that I'll ever be able to know any of this with certainty. So when someone says they know, I'm curious how they know, and their level of certainty. It's all theoretical-conceptual from 52 years of research and search, beginning at age 17. My initial search began with Theosophical Society information. Blavatsky was a bit beyond my wish to try to comprehend. I studied a little Alice Bailey, but my primary source was CW Leadbeater (who happens to be the man who discovered J Krishnamurti, in India). Over the years I researched different areas, the Bardo information comes from Tibetan Buddhism. After Theosophy I pretty quickly found J Krishnamurti, about 1970. At that time I had zero idea of his connection with CW Leadbeater, I subsequently learned of JK's history. The post was my synopsis of my present understanding of the whole process, from years of consideration. If you looked at the history of Niz, his teacher and his relationship with his teacher, what I wrote would also fit within his POV. Niz essentially created a shortcut, the same with Ramana. I probably respect James Swartz the most concerning these questions, as he has not left out any steps in the whole process. The small s self will most likely be a memory in a 'larger whole', as you can remember being in first grade, ~you~ in a certain sense that same person, but in a certain sense you are not, ~you~ are more. My interest is in completing the journey, here, now, in this life. That entails transforming residual energy from all aspects of life. For me, it necessarily doesn't-mean imagining one has completed the journey, or imagining there is no journey to complete. The ideal image is the purpose of the life of Jesus, he didn't do it for us as today's church teaches. He showed us what everyone will eventually need to go through to complete the journey, this is expressly stated in at least two places in the NT. So, if one cannot 'go like a lamb to slaughter', your journey isn't yet over. In Theosophical literature, Jesus went through 5 initiations which we all must go through to complete the journey. (My primary source today is not Theosophical literature). Of course I realize I'm a lone wolf here. "When you live among wolves you must howl like a wolf".
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 12:54:39 GMT -5
As always. The wrong means can never be used to achieve the right results. The war will never end. Each side knows they are correct (which isn't possible). I am exceptionally disappointed in the last 4 years. After the first couple of weeks of Trump taking office, I never expected anything from him ever again, contention gets nobody anywhere, and that's all Trump is, CONTENTION (I should have realized that the art of the deal for Trump only means getting what I want). My disappoint is with Republican leadership who went along with him...and those that still do. I think in politics, my heart will now forever rule my head. I will mostly likely never vote for a Republican ever again in any election. The problem, Democrats are going to join the Dark Side (concerning means). I may never vote again, period. Politics in a Democracy/Republic can only function with compromise, and balance. I put it on Republicans for destroying that. Payback will be hell. It has started. The pendulum always swings. Politics is not war. Those who think it is will always be the losers in the end. The truth will always win in the end. The first countermove threat, the threat to move the MLB All Star game from Atlanta. Fairness cannot be built upon lies. As you are somewhat suggesting, I think more than anything, what the world would benefit from most right now, is truthfulness. And I think we are ripe for that truthfulness, and yet the ripeness won't protect many from the hurt and the pain of that truth. I agree that there are lies on all sides. I also won't vote again. I didn't vote between the years of 1997-2017 (though I could have done). I somewhat uncomfortably voted in 2017-19 here in the UK, but I'm done with it again now. Yes, wholeheartedly agree. But the 'sides' cannot agree on what the truth is, what actuality is. The false sense of self, the small s self, filters the truth according to its constitution. Both sides, all sides, sincerely believe their POV is the truth. That's why the primary operating principle must necessarily be compromise.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 13:12:47 GMT -5
Dialogue is superfluous if one doesn't understand the other's position. That might be a sad truth. I was reflecting on something similar this morning. I tend to make genuine efforts to see things from other people's point of view when discussing issues. After all, nobody acts without good reason (from within their model). And I also ask myself, how could I possibly challenge that person's values and beliefs without first understanding their good reason for doing what they do? Of course, sometimes I make the effort to understand and then decide that their model is 'unchallengeable'. There are psychopaths in the world too, how do you explain the value of empathy to someone, when they have such little reference for it? In those situations, I find it useful to remember that nature itself is beautiful in its incredible diversity. Perhaps it also goes back to what you used to say about Hawkins....we tend to talk to people either '2 steps above or 2 steps below'. I think you used to say that, I could be wrong. Very nice post andrew, you have always been the peacemaker around here, not easy. I have read a little Hawkins, I agree with that quote but I don't think I would have quoted him. We can't see what's above our understanding, we usually don't think there is anything above what we can see. But there always is, there is always further. The higher always reconciles the opposites. What I have posted more than once is, one cannot know what's above one's level of being. And, the higher knows the lower but the lower cannot know the higher. Abbot's Flatland is a good description of these principles. A 2-dimensional being is limited to comprehending 2D. We are 3D-4D beings living in a 5D universe, inside a 6D universe, inside a 7D universe (maybe even in an 8-D universe, all that's necessary, as the 8th is a repeating octave, forming an Ouroboros). The film Interstellar is a very good try at showing what's possible. Jesus, Lao Tzu, Buddha, many more, examples of what-we-can-be.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 13:22:59 GMT -5
Dialogue is superfluous if one doesn't understand the other's position. That might be a sad truth. There is no objective reality, just subjective realities. I'm not sure you believe that. It would dissolve all arguments, that is, make all arguments superfluous. How could you possibly disagree with someone else's subjective reality?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 13:57:50 GMT -5
There is no objective reality, just subjective realities. I'm not sure you believe that. It would dissolve all arguments, that is, make all arguments superfluous. How could you possibly disagree with someone else's subjective reality? That's a good point. I beat myself up every time I get upset, after I react. I failed a test. Surely, I meant: I believe that. I shouldn't have skipped the "I believe" part. Everything I state is only what I believe. I believe that we have to respond to whatever reality we face, as (I believe) it is a symbolical test. The point is to respond, not to be reactive. As one evolves, they respond at another level: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition. I believe that one should respond by wanting to create a result, and not to react at a stimulus. To me, the word "reaction" is lower on the scale "instincts -> emotions -> intellect -> intuition". The word "creation" is on the high side. I think that arguments have no usefulness, in most cases. I usually state an opinion with no expectation to argue it: for information. I really get pissed off by rudeness, and by unfair, negligent treatment of me and others. I should be more in control of my reactions to those.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 14:25:14 GMT -5
There is no objective reality, just subjective realities. I'm not sure you believe that. It would dissolve all arguments, that is, make all arguments superfluous. How could you possibly disagree with someone else's subjective reality? I just noticed that. I don't disagree with someone else's subjective reality. I have no access to anybody else's subjective reality (under normal states of consciousness). I react to my subjective reality, created by my subconscious, and perceived through my physical senses. It is similar with me-in-my-dream that doesn't have access to others' dreams (again, under normal states of consciousness). In my dream I react to whatever dream characters and dream situations, when I am not lucid.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 15:22:23 GMT -5
I'm not sure you believe that. It would dissolve all arguments, that is, make all arguments superfluous. How could you possibly disagree with someone else's subjective reality? That's a good point. I beat myself up every time I get upset, after I react. I failed a test. Surely, I meant: I believe that. I shouldn't have skipped the "I believe" part. Everything I state is only what I believe. I believe that we have to respond to whatever reality we face, as (I believe) it is a symbolical test. The point is to respond, not to be reactive. As one evolves, they respond at another level: instincts, emotions, intellect, intuition. I believe that one should respond by wanting to create a result, and not to react at a stimulus. To me, the word "reaction" is lower on the scale "instincts -> emotions -> intellect -> intuition". The word "creation" is on the high side. I think that arguments have no usefulness, in most cases. I usually state an opinion with no expectation to argue it: for information. I really get pissed off by rudeness, and by unfair, negligent treatment of me and others. I should be more in control of my reactions to those. Yes. These are separate, being pissed off and what one does in reaction or in taking action. The former (being pissed off) is like a thermometer, the second (what we do) is like a thermostat (which as part of its function also has to incorporate measuring the temperature). Yes, everything is a test.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 15:40:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure you believe that. It would dissolve all arguments, that is, make all arguments superfluous. How could you possibly disagree with someone else's subjective reality? I just noticed that. I don't disagree with someone else's subjective reality. I have no access to anybody else's subjective reality (under normal states of consciousness). I react to my subjective reality, created by my subconscious, and perceived through my physical senses. It is similar with me-in-my-dream that doesn't have access to others' dreams (again, under normal states of consciousness). In my dream I react to whatever dream characters and dream situations, when I am not lucid. I'm not disagreeing or arguing, but I have a question. I don't understand how this idea that everybody creates their own reality works. (I understand it arises out of the unconscious). Example, two people pursue the same objective. An election, or, two men like the same lady, two people want to be president of a company, two countries want to occupy the same territory, I could probably give 100 examples. Both sides cannot win. Another example, coming up to a traffic light, one street gets a green light, another gets a red light. We have to agree that red means stop green means go, otherwise two views of reality result in a crash. Do you care to explain further? I don't see any way to get around the fact we all in some sense live in an objective reality. (Nonduality gets around it by saying there is only one actor, so contradictions don't exist/can't exist, but I am not a nondualist, without qualification).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 15:57:45 GMT -5
Not sure if I shared this, but this is excellent Very nice! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 16:39:10 GMT -5
I just noticed that. I don't disagree with someone else's subjective reality. I have no access to anybody else's subjective reality (under normal states of consciousness). I react to my subjective reality, created by my subconscious, and perceived through my physical senses. It is similar with me-in-my-dream that doesn't have access to others' dreams (again, under normal states of consciousness). In my dream I react to whatever dream characters and dream situations, when I am not lucid. I'm not disagreeing or arguing, but I have a question. I don't understand how this idea that everybody creates their own reality works. (I understand it arises out of the unconscious). Example, two people pursue the same objective. An election, or, two men like the same lady, two people want to be president of a company, two countries want to occupy the same territory, I could probably give 100 examples. Both sides cannot win. Another example, coming up to a traffic light, one street gets a green light, another gets a red light. We have to agree that red means stop green means go, otherwise two views of reality result in a crash. Do you care to explain further? I don't see any way to get around the fact we all in some sense live in an objective reality. ( Nonduality gets around it by saying there is only one actor, so contradictions don't exist/can't exist, but I am not a nondualist, without qualification). The way I understand it ... Everything is connected at subconscious level. Potentially any piece of consciousness can be aware of any other one. In fact, every piece of consciousness pays attention only to a subset, its sphere of interest. This is outside the physical reality; outside our space and time concepts. Each one of us (not humans only) has a subconscious that creates our own individual version of the reality, under the direction of our non-physical aspect ( inner-self, which is actually the aspect the closest to be our true-self, Self, whatever), with the assistance of an inner-guide (a more highly evolved gestalt of consciousness), in the framework of our beliefs (secondary conditions) and primary conditions (like identity, existence, motion, ...). This reality is observed only by our ego (outer-self) through its five physical senses. It is similar to how we conventionally see our dreams: our subconscious creates dreams with characters and situations, some of them are related to our connections in the wake-reality, others aren't. In our dreams we have no idea that we dream; we believe everything is real. I try to focus on replying to your question, and not to add unrelated information, for clarity. What I experience isn't identical to any other experience. It may be influenced by others, or not. For all you care, I might not even exist, but be a creation of your own subconscious, for whatever purpose your inner-self and / or inner guide have. So, there is no conflict between individual personalities, inner-selves. The division was necessary in order to separate creation from reaction, to slow down manifestation, for the purpose of practicing, learning how to do it. Not all units of consciousnesses are at the same level of evolvement. I noticed that some of the concepts promoted by non-dualists agree with some of mine. It may be that what they see is the oneness of one personality, not going beyond that. I don't know. I imagine the physical universe as a sandbox that has on one axis time, on another space, on the other probability. When you get born you get into a chosen point of this sandbox, then you move through it living your life. Then you make choices, pick probabilities, move on. You can enter the sandbox every time wherever you want (not necessarily at a later physical time; can even enter the same time, because you are somebody else): you have an identity, you exist, you move. It can be compared to a virtual reality software. Your inner-self doesn't move; it isn't part of the physical reality.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2021 18:13:11 GMT -5
I'm not disagreeing or arguing, but I have a question. I don't understand how this idea that everybody creates their own reality works. (I understand it arises out of the unconscious). Example, two people pursue the same objective. An election, or, two men like the same lady, two people want to be president of a company, two countries want to occupy the same territory, I could probably give 100 examples. Both sides cannot win. Another example, coming up to a traffic light, one street gets a green light, another gets a red light. We have to agree that red means stop green means go, otherwise two views of reality result in a crash. Do you care to explain further? I don't see any way to get around the fact we all in some sense live in an objective reality. ( Nonduality gets around it by saying there is only one actor, so contradictions don't exist/can't exist, but I am not a nondualist, without qualification). The way I understand it ... Everything is connected at subconscious level. Potentially any piece of consciousness can be aware of any other one. In fact, every piece of consciousness pays attention only to a subset, its sphere of interest. This is outside the physical reality; outside our space and time concepts. Each one of us (not humans only) has a subconscious that creates our own individual version of the reality, under the direction of our non-physical aspect ( inner-self, which is actually the aspect the closest to be our true-self, Self, whatever), with the assistance of an inner-guide (a more highly evolved gestalt of consciousness), in the framework of our beliefs (secondary conditions) and primary conditions (like identity, existence, motion, ...). This reality is observed only by our ego (outer-self) through its five physical senses. It is similar to how we conventionally see our dreams: our subconscious creates dreams with characters and situations, some of them are related to our connections in the wake-reality, others aren't. In our dreams we have no idea that we dream; we believe everything is real. I try to focus on replying to your question, and not to add unrelated information, for clarity. What I experience isn't identical to any other experience. It may be influenced by others, or not. For all you care, I might not even exist, but be a creation of your own subconscious, for whatever purpose your inner-self and / or inner guide have. So, there is no conflict between individual personalities, inner-selves. The division was necessary in order to separate creation from reaction, to slow down manifestation, for the purpose of practicing, learning how to do it. Not all units of consciousnesses are at the same level of evolvement. I noticed that some of the concepts promoted by non-dualists agree with some of mine. It may be that what they see is the oneness of one personality, not going beyond that. I don't know. I imagine the physical universe as a sandbox that has on one axis time, on another space, on the other probability. When you get born you get into a chosen point of this sandbox, then you move through it living your life. Then you make choices, pick probabilities, move on. You can enter the sandbox every time wherever you want (not necessarily at a later physical time; can even enter the same time, because you are somebody else): you have an identity, you exist, you move. It can be compared to a virtual reality software. Your inner-self doesn't move; it isn't part of the physical reality. OK, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 18:38:06 GMT -5
Not sure if I shared this, but this is excellent Very nice! Thank you. Lao Tzu: 三十八章 上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以无德。 上德无为而无以为;下德无为而有以为。 Chapter 38 The man of high virtue is not aware of his own virtue and therefore has (real) virtue; The man of low virtue tries hard not to lose his own virtue and therefore has no (real) virtue. The man of high virtue does nothing to show off his virtue; The man of low virtue does nothing yet tries to show off his virtue.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 1, 2021 21:17:23 GMT -5
Lao Tzu: 三十八章 上德不德,是以有德;下德不失德,是以无德。 上德无为而无以为;下德无为而有以为。 Chapter 38 The man of high virtue is not aware of his own virtue and therefore has (real) virtue; The man of low virtue tries hard not to lose his own virtue and therefore has no (real) virtue. The man of high virtue does nothing to show off his virtue; The man of low virtue does nothing yet tries to show off his virtue. link上德不德, Word Decomposition 上 shàng on top; upon; above; upper; previous; first (of multiple parts); superior; regarding 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 不 bù (negative prefix); not; no 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 Lin Yutang: The man of superior character is not (conscious of his) character.
是以有德; Word Decomposition 是以 shìyǐ therefore; thus; so 有德 yǒudé virtuousness Lin Yutang: Hence he has character.
下德不失德, Word Decomposition 下 xià down; downwards; below; lower; later; next (week etc); second (of two parts); to decline; to go down; to arrive at (a decision, conclusion etc) 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 不 bù (negative prefix); not; no 失 shī to lose; to miss; to fail 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 Lin Yutang: The man of inferior character (is intent on) not losing character.
是以无德。 Word Decomposition 是以 shìyǐ therefore; thus; so 无 wú not to have; no; none; not; to lack; un-; -less 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 Lin Yutang: Hence he is devoid of character.
上德无为而无以为; Word Decomposition 上 shàng on top; upon; above; upper; previous; first (of multiple parts); superior; regarding 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 无为 wúwéi the Daoist doctrine of inaction; let things take their own course; laissez-faire; Wuwei county in Chaohu 巢湖, Anhui 而 ér and; as well as; and so; but (not); yet (not); (indicates causal relation); (indicates change of state); (indicates contrast) 无 wú not to have; no; none; not; to lack; un-; -less 以为 yǐwéi to believe; to think; to consider; to be under the impression Lin Yutang: The man of superior character never acts, Nor ever (does so) with an ulterior motive.
下德无为而有以为。 Word Decomposition 下 xià down; downwards; below; lower; later; next (week etc); second (of two parts); to decline; to go down; to arrive at (a decision, conclusion etc) 德 dé virtue; goodness; morality; ethics; kindness; favor; character; kind; Germany; German; abbr. for 德国 无为 wúwéi the Daoist doctrine of inaction; let things take their own course; laissez-faire; Wuwei county in Chaohu 巢湖, Anhui 而 ér and; as well as; and so; but (not); yet (not); (indicates causal relation); (indicates change of state); (indicates contrast) 有 yǒu to have; there is; there are; to exist; to be 以为 yǐwéi to believe; to think; to consider; to be under the impression Lin Yutang: The man of inferior character acts, And (does so) with an ulterior motive.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 22:55:01 GMT -5
Hi SDP, I'm curious, what makes you think the underlined part? Do you feel you know for sure, or is it more a hunch of what you think might be true? I'm of course curious what happens after death, what happens to "me" (the "me" that feels like an individual being, but may not exist, if I believe the previews of 'truth' from non-dual teachers). But I'm skeptical that I'll ever be able to know any of this with certainty. So when someone says they know, I'm curious how they know, and their level of certainty. In the days in which I suffered great mental distress, I would contemplate suicide. I would find that the moment that I decided that it was a genuine option for me, that there was a letting go, a peace would rush in, and there was no longer a movement to contemplate it. This decision and letting go couldn't be 'manufactured', I couldn't make it happen. It had to happen of its own accord i.e I had to experience it as a genuine option. I came to strongly know through these experiences that 'something' does not dies. I don't mean this in a non-dual way, it's more a new age thing (but I understand the non-dual sense too). While I can say I 'know' this, I can't say I know what happens, I 'believe' that there are many different paths. Some might 'dissolve' fully into pure awareness. For others there might be a retaining of 'consciousness' in some way i.e other dimensions of experience. I don't know, but I think lots of potentials. I read a book last year called, ''The Afterlife of Billy Fingers''. I'd known about it for many years, and had read quotes from it, but on reading, discovered it was quite a different book to what I had expected. If you are bored one day, I'd recommend it. I didn't just find it interesting, it actually 'stretched' me. Were you aware of the parallels between what you experienced and Ramana Maharishi's story?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 1, 2021 23:05:19 GMT -5
Reincarnation is an interesting belief - you might want to look into questioning it. Fake quotes aren't subjective: the person either said it or they didn't. In this case, it turns out that we actually have proof of the negative, but that's besides the point. The quote is fake unless it can be substantiated. Reincarnation is essentially a non-issue, it's very complicated. The self we consider ourselves to be, the small s self, doesn't reincarnate, it dies in the Bardo. Our unprocessed energy gets another go, but 99.999% of people have zero direct knowledge or experience of 'who/what' incarnates. A completely new cultural self is formed upon incarnation. So, in one sense there is no reincarnation and in another sense, there is. Why is it a non-issue? "Liberation" occurs in only-one-particular-life. In a certain sense it is a timeless phenomenon, time is a factor, until it isn't. Basically, all the energy of the samskaras and the vasanas has to be transformed. Until that occurs the journey is not over. We can live in imagination and think the journey has ended... Never took any notion of it on board myself. From the outside looking in, it would seem to me that any belief related to the potential continuity of the limited, unique perspective would be worth examining as possibly founded, perhaps unconsciously, on the fear of death.
|
|