|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 12, 2022 8:44:52 GMT -5
Because that's the way consciousness creates. All that exists here is Infinite and it's perceptions. Nothing else. Continuity is clearly the case for the individuals to perceive like in your nightly dream, you perceive the continuity yet you know that it's all happening in your consciousness when you come out from your dream state. I don't really understand the answer. Although in fairness, reading back, I'm not sure I really understand my question now either.  E' once spun poor gopal up for a week or so with the crack that the Moon is based in "cloud storage".  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 24, 2022 12:14:19 GMT -5
Ad hominem. This means attacking the person and not his argument. I never attack the person because the person is an illusion and doesn't exist. If I associate "Reefs" with a statement that I take apart, it is not an attack on Reefs. Attachment to the statement being invalidated is the problem. If I were to observe conventional decorum, I would be contributing to the reinforcement of the illusion of the self.
I take this forum and forum members seriously and with respect. If a poster were to inform forum members of a spiritual realization, it is incumbent on me (and others) to verify its authenticity. Spirituality is not a form of escape to me. It is serious business pertaining to your welfare and mine.
Take your views on physical health matters. I know a thing or two myself about exercise/nutrition and have been working out to maintain health and fitness forever. Have I questioned you on this topic? No. I would have if you had said something I found silly and harmful healthwise
And he had a colorful personality and made some stupid decisions that got him into a lot of trouble and dependencies, no doubt. In essence, he was born into almost poor conditions, but his parents were very adamant to give him a good education. Basically the entire family savings went into Alan's education. And he did well at school and got a scholarship into a very good school that gave him a solid classical education. He developed an interest into Buddhism before it was even popular in the West and especially Zen before anyone outside of academia had even heard of it. He also started to meditate when he was still in school and a young teen. Being very much fascinated with Zen, he was very skeptical of academia right from the start and didn't want to have a career there, even though he would have had a stellar career there, given his talent, interest and background. He married rather young and also into wealth and he lived the good live of the upper classes for many years. He was able to move to America and escape the chaos of the war in Europe. But his main focus in life has always been the divine in all its facets, not mundane life and so he very much neglected that part of his life. So he got divorced and lost not only his affluent life style but also his reputation and from that point he was a full time bohemian, minus the money. His circle of friends was huge and so was his influence on them. Alan was basically the foundation of the later hippy and new age movement of the 60s. He was hip before hip was cool. With his depth of knowledge and understanding of eastern culture and religion, he laid a very solid foundation and become a sort of go to guru for the flower children. So if people want to portrait Alan as merely an intellectual then they are not really familiar with his perspective and life. Now, one sticky point in Alan's life has always been Christianity. His upbringing was very strict and ultra-conservative, basically the opposite of what A-H teach, instead of being taught that what feels good is good and what feels bad is bad, Alan - like so many of us - had been taught that if it feels good it must be really bad and if it feels bad it must be good. And it took Alan almost half of his life to see thru the idiocy of that approach to life and to finally correct that perspective intellectually, philosophically and then to actually live it. One of his book is called A Joyous cosmology, after all. So despite all of the rather extreme ups and downs in his life, he managed to remain his naturally cheerful self, almost carefree and always in love with life. So you see, your earlier portrait of Alan as just another intellectual couldn't be further from the truth. And actaully, your comments about the Chinese language and those professors of Chinese culture at universities don't seem to be based on any real knowledge either. I am actually wondering if you have ever seen a university from the inside, let alone a faculty or department of Chinese studies. I highly doubt it, given the caricatures you have drawn about academia. You see, without these people in academia who studied classical languages and spent years working on translations of ancient books, we wouldn't be here talking about these subjects with such ease. These people were pioneers in their own fields. And so was Alan. He was trailblazer. He went where no one before him in the West had gone before. And his work speaks for itself. Even 50 years after his death, his talks and books are more popular and relevant than ever. You are talking about Alan Watts? Wow, you do have a strong attachment to this guy if any of my remarks about him is objectionable ad hominem to you in forum discussion here. First of all, I don't know anything about Alan Watts until I checked him out on Wikipedia. I did come across his name long ago in my forays into Buddhist literature but never read anything he wrote. To me, he was lightweight, just another Eckhart Tolle. Buddhism is an ancient Eastern religion that originated in Varanasi, India. If I want to hunt ducks, I go to Wisconsin. If I want to gamble, I go to Las Vegas. Why would I study the musings of some cool Brit from the UK about the teachings of the Buddha? As it turned out (from info on Wikipedia) he was a pop culture icon of western flakes of the boomer generation. I am sorry if you feel I am spitting ad hominems about Watts. I don't like crooks, and they seem to lurk everywhere. This doesn't prevent me from objectively examining anything they have to say about the ending of human suffering.
Watts didn't develop an interest in Buddhism in the West. The first guy, on record, who brought Buddhism to the west was arguably Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit, who mastered classical Chinese well enough to debate Mandarin scholars on ancient Chinese thought, and engaged Buddhist monks on Buddhist philosophy. Ricci opened up the western mind to eastern religions. Theosophy - the western version of eastern spiritualism - was the result. Watts wasn't born then. Below is taken from a book written by a British German academic:
“How a religion which taught the annihilation of all existence, of all thought, of all individuality and personality, as the highest object of all endeavours, could have laid hold of the minds of millions of human beings, and how at the same time, by enforcing the duties of morality, justice, kindness, and self-sacrifice, it could have exercised a decidedly beneficial influence, not only on the natives of India, but on the lowest barbarians of Central Asia, is a riddle which no one has yet been able to solve.”
(Studies in Buddhism, 1888, Federich Max Muller).
Your high regard for Alan Watts must be given consideration in my discussions with you and others in this thread. I hope you would not object to critical comments on Watts' lectures you post.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 24, 2022 13:43:10 GMT -5
Objectified perception vs direct perception. I live in a world of objectified perception. The denigration of this world as one of "relative realness" serves to promote an other world of absolute realness. Why? Why do we do this? You pointed out that there are people who have everything going for them in this world and yet feel something missing. I doubt that. How do we know that people can have everything going for them? Is that even possible? Our world, the one in which we live, is real enough but it is a mess and we can fix it. I am not talking about political or social activism which worsens the mess. The pursuit of absolute realness is the avoidance of maya, the mess that needs fixing. It's funny that you know enough to attend to the health of your worldly body instead of ignoring its welfare to seek an ideal absolute body.
That's, strictly speaking, impossible, unless you are an AI bot. As long as you are human, you live in the world of direct perception, maybe with an extra layer of abstraction that can become rather thick over time. But your body, the cells in your body, they live in the world of direct perception. That's your natural state, your default stat of functioning. Now, you may not be aware of the world of direct perception most of your waking time because you are hyper-focused on that extra layer of abstraction, mesmerized by it, but the fact remains, as long as you are a living, breathing human being, you are firmly grounded in the world of direct perception. You'll notice that when you wake up in the morning. Even those who seem totally lost in abstractions have their brief moments when the matrix in their heads goes silent. They just don't pay attention to it. So this is merely a matter of perspective, an error in perspective if you will. And the realizations that we talk about here are merely about corrections in perspective, pointing out that error and then going on with your life. So what many have realized is that it's not the world that needs fixing, it's our perspective that needs fixing. The world can take care of itself and actually does take care of itself as does nature and the entire universe. As Alan put it, the universe is a self-governing living organism. It doesn't need your intervention.We need to ensure that we understand what each of us is talking about.
In conventional terms, "nature and the entire universe" means a world apart from "you and me".
I agree that "you and me" don't need to be concerned about "nature and the entire universe" which is a self-governing living organism.
So far, we share the same perspective. Right? We both agree that "nature and the entire universe" which is the world apart from "you and me" doesn't need fixing.
What about "you and me", that part of the world that needs fixing? Now, don't try and break this part of the world up as comprising "me" and "you". My perspective is that the part of the world that needs fixing is "me and you" and that it cannot be broken into one part "me" and the other part "you" for fixing.
What is your perspective? Do you see "you" (Reefs) as one part that doesn't need fixing and "me" (sree) as the part that needs fixing?
When I read through the posts in this entire forum, the common mindset - including mine - is a selfish one. The exception is that mine is the only perception that portrays us as one human organism that needs selfishness fixed in one toolshed. The other perception presents individual human beings, each one doing his own thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2022 21:56:15 GMT -5
We need to ensure that we understand what each of us is talking about.
In conventional terms, "nature and the entire universe" means a world apart from "you and me".
I agree that "you and me" don't need to be concerned about "nature and the entire universe" which is a self-governing living organism.
So far, we share the same perspective. Right? We both agree that "nature and the entire universe" which is the world apart from "you and me" doesn't need fixing. What about "you and me", that part of the world that needs fixing? Now, don't try and break this part of the world up as comprising "me" and "you". My perspective is that the part of the world that needs fixing is "me and you" and that it cannot be broken into one part "me" and the other part "you" for fixing.
What is your perspective? Do you see "you" (Reefs) as one part that doesn't need fixing and "me" (sree) as the part that needs fixing?
When I read through the posts in this entire forum, the common mindset - including mine - is a selfish one. The exception is that mine is the only perception that portrays us as one human organism that needs selfishness fixed in one toolshed. The other perception presents individual human beings, each one doing his own thing.
From the impersonal perspective, you are the world. The world is your body. In that context, the idea of fixing doesn't even make sense. From the personal perspective, the world is a reflection of your self (or state of being) and my world is a reflection of my self (or state of being). And everyone can only have the perspective of self, not of another. Which means selfishness is the default state. Going with the organism analogy, when each cell tends selfishly to itself, the entire organism will thrive. Yes, I actually do think your attitude and self-image needs fixing. It does seem to cause you a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 27, 2022 12:26:36 GMT -5
We need to ensure that we understand what each of us is talking about.
In conventional terms, "nature and the entire universe" means a world apart from "you and me".
I agree that "you and me" don't need to be concerned about "nature and the entire universe" which is a self-governing living organism.
So far, we share the same perspective. Right? We both agree that "nature and the entire universe" which is the world apart from "you and me" doesn't need fixing. What about "you and me", that part of the world that needs fixing? Now, don't try and break this part of the world up as comprising "me" and "you". My perspective is that the part of the world that needs fixing is "me and you" and that it cannot be broken into one part "me" and the other part "you" for fixing.
What is your perspective? Do you see "you" (Reefs) as one part that doesn't need fixing and "me" (sree) as the part that needs fixing?
When I read through the posts in this entire forum, the common mindset - including mine - is a selfish one. The exception is that mine is the only perception that portrays us as one human organism that needs selfishness fixed in one toolshed. The other perception presents individual human beings, each one doing his own thing.
From the impersonal perspective, you are the world. The world is your body. In that context, the idea of fixing doesn't even make sense. From the personal perspective, the world is a reflection of your self (or state of being) and my world is a reflection of my self (or state of being). And everyone can only have the perspective of self, not of another. Which means selfishness is the default state. Going with the organism analogy, when each cell tends selfishly to itself, the entire organism will thrive. Yes, I actually do think your attitude and self-image needs fixing. It does seem to cause you a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. You are speaking figuratively, correct? You are equating “world” with “body”. The conventional meanings of those two words as defined in the dictionary are not the same. Math-wise you would be stating 1 = 2. Yes?
To me, you do come across as the smartest guy in this forum mainly because you are the only one who is sure of himself and confident. I like that. So, I need to be on the same page as you in our discussions.
Please explain your statement highlighted above |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 27, 2022 12:50:09 GMT -5
From the impersonal perspective, you are the world. The world is your body. In that context, the idea of fixing doesn't even make sense. From the personal perspective, the world is a reflection of your self (or state of being) and my world is a reflection of my self (or state of being). And everyone can only have the perspective of self, not of another. Which means selfishness is the default state. Going with the organism analogy, when each cell tends selfishly to itself, the entire organism will thrive. Yes, I actually do think your attitude and self-image needs fixing. It does seem to cause you a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. You are speaking figuratively, correct? You are equating “world” with “body”. The conventional meanings of those two words as defined in the dictionary are not the same. Math-wise you would be stating 1 = 2. Yes? To me, you do come across as the smartest guy in this forum mainly because you are the only one who is sure of himself and confident. I like that. So, I need to be on the same page as you in our discussions. Please explain your statement highlighted above I am equating 'world' with 'YOU' (the real and eternal 'you' that has no name, no beginning and no end and escapes any and all mental categories; not the transient 'you' that has a name, a definite beginning and end and fits a certain mental category). This is not about being smart. Smart won't help you here. Smart may help you in philosophy or religious studies. This is solely about seeing clearly and absolute knowing. Second hand won't do here. It has to be first hand. This is about seeing into your own true nature and knowing who you truly are. Not seeing it with your physical eyes or knowing it intellectually, but seeing it with the eyes of the Infinite and knowing it on a visceral level, feeling it with every fiber of your being. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 28, 2022 9:56:55 GMT -5
You are speaking figuratively, correct? You are equating “world” with “body”. The conventional meanings of those two words as defined in the dictionary are not the same. Math-wise you would be stating 1 = 2. Yes? To me, you do come across as the smartest guy in this forum mainly because you are the only one who is sure of himself and confident. I like that. So, I need to be on the same page as you in our discussions. Please explain your statement highlighted above I am equating 'world' with 'YOU' (the real and eternal 'you' that has no name, no beginning and no end and escapes any and all mental categories; not the transient 'you' that has a name, a definite beginning and end and fits a certain mental category). This is not about being smart. Smart won't help you here. Smart may help you in philosophy or religious studies. This is solely about seeing clearly and absolute knowing. Second hand won't do here. It has to be first hand. This is about seeing into your own true nature and knowing who you truly are. Not seeing it with your physical eyes or knowing it intellectually, but seeing it with the eyes of the Infinite and knowing it on a visceral level, feeling it with every fiber of your being. I didn’t mean that you are smart in the thinking department which is the preserve of the intellectual in academia. They have rules of engagement. You are street-smart in the world of conventional spirituality. You are a “no-holds-barred” survivor. Engaging you in spiritual discussion is akin to a face-off in a street fight.
We all have our beliefs. Now that you have explained what you meant, I will deal with the assertions in your earlier post. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 28, 2022 12:01:18 GMT -5
We need to ensure that we understand what each of us is talking about.
In conventional terms, "nature and the entire universe" means a world apart from "you and me".
I agree that "you and me" don't need to be concerned about "nature and the entire universe" which is a self-governing living organism.
So far, we share the same perspective. Right? We both agree that "nature and the entire universe" which is the world apart from "you and me" doesn't need fixing. What about "you and me", that part of the world that needs fixing? Now, don't try and break this part of the world up as comprising "me" and "you". My perspective is that the part of the world that needs fixing is "me and you" and that it cannot be broken into one part "me" and the other part "you" for fixing.
What is your perspective? Do you see "you" (Reefs) as one part that doesn't need fixing and "me" (sree) as the part that needs fixing?
When I read through the posts in this entire forum, the common mindset - including mine - is a selfish one. The exception is that mine is the only perception that portrays us as one human organism that needs selfishness fixed in one toolshed. The other perception presents individual human beings, each one doing his own thing.
From the impersonal perspective, you are the world. The world is your body. In that context, the idea of fixing doesn't even make sense. From the personal perspective, the world is a reflection of your self (or state of being) and my world is a reflection of my self (or state of being). And everyone can only have the perspective of self, not of another. Which means selfishness is the default state. Going with the organism analogy, when each cell tends selfishly to itself, the entire organism will thrive. Yes, I actually do think your attitude and self-image needs fixing. It does seem to cause you a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. So, you think that my attitude needs fixing. I do suffer from anxiety. If, as you say, everyone can only have the perspective of self but not of another, then each is completely cut off from the rest of mankind. My anxiety, my suffering, is nobody else’s.
Your attitude doesn’t need fixing because you have your impersonal perspective. Am I right?
By the way, I don’t think that all the cells of an organism tend selfishly to themselves the way we do. Theirs is an organic selfishness of Mother Nature. This is why the human body thrives. Ours is a screwed up selfishness of personal perspective. And this is the cause of the breakdown in the organism of mankind.
Bees are selfish in an organic way. So are ants. And that is how they live harmoniously in their hives and nests. If cells and insects can do it, why can’t we? I think cells and insects are free of personal perspective and guided by the impersonal perspective you speak of. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2022 20:43:48 GMT -5
I am equating 'world' with 'YOU' (the real and eternal 'you' that has no name, no beginning and no end and escapes any and all mental categories; not the transient 'you' that has a name, a definite beginning and end and fits a certain mental category). This is not about being smart. Smart won't help you here. Smart may help you in philosophy or religious studies. This is solely about seeing clearly and absolute knowing. Second hand won't do here. It has to be first hand. This is about seeing into your own true nature and knowing who you truly are. Not seeing it with your physical eyes or knowing it intellectually, but seeing it with the eyes of the Infinite and knowing it on a visceral level, feeling it with every fiber of your being. I didn’t mean that you are smart in the thinking department which is the preserve of the intellectual in academia. They have rules of engagement. You are street-smart in the world of conventional spirituality. You are a “no-holds-barred” survivor. Engaging you in spiritual discussion is akin to a face-off in a street fight. We all have our beliefs. Now that you have explained what you meant, I will deal with the assertions in your earlier post. It's called dharma combat. It's a test of your actual understanding, beyond mere buzzwords and fancy phrases. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 28, 2022 21:35:05 GMT -5
From the impersonal perspective, you are the world. The world is your body. In that context, the idea of fixing doesn't even make sense. From the personal perspective, the world is a reflection of your self (or state of being) and my world is a reflection of my self (or state of being). And everyone can only have the perspective of self, not of another. Which means selfishness is the default state. Going with the organism analogy, when each cell tends selfishly to itself, the entire organism will thrive. Yes, I actually do think your attitude and self-image needs fixing. It does seem to cause you a lot of unnecessary mental suffering. So, you think that my attitude needs fixing. I do suffer from anxiety. If, as you say, everyone can only have the perspective of self but not of another, then each is completely cut off from the rest of mankind. My anxiety, my suffering, is nobody else’s. Your attitude doesn’t need fixing because you have your impersonal perspective. Am I right?
By the way, I don’t think that all the cells of an organism tend selfishly to themselves the way we do. Theirs is an organic selfishness of Mother Nature. This is why the human body thrives. Ours is a screwed up selfishness of personal perspective. And this is the cause of the breakdown in the organism of mankind.
Bees are selfish in an organic way. So are ants. And that is how they live harmoniously in their hives and nests. If cells and insects can do it, why can’t we? I think cells and insects are free of personal perspective and guided by the impersonal perspective you speak of. You are right, the selfishness in nature is usually a bit different. This is the alignment issue again. I suspect your actual issue is not with selfishness but lack of alignment. There is a big difference between someone being selfish and in alignment (upper half of the emotional scale, e.g. content, eager, happy, joyous) and someone being selfish and out of alignment (lower half of the emotional scale, e.g. frustrated, worried, jealous, fearful). So I think you rather have an issue with humans mainly hanging out on the lower half of that scale than humans being selfish per se. The fixing part is an alignment issue. And that's always a moment to moment issue. The impersonal perspective doesn't even have to enter in here. And as many sages who still experience anger, frustration and even sadness show, the impersonal perspective won't save you here. Alignment solely depends on your focus, on which aspects of reality you focus, lack or abundance, your mood and then state of being will automatically follow suit. So in that sense, you are never done. You may have a cheerful predisposition and developed good habits over time that created a strong momentum to see the glass half full all the time, but if you, let's say watch the news all day for a week and do nothing else during your waking time, you'll see your spirits diminished over time. And if you, let's say watch the People Are Awesome channel and play with babies and dogs all day, you'll see your spirits lifted over time. It's just the simple mechanics of creation. This is what I've meant in an earlier post about these gurus that suffered from cancer. They did not know about this focus deal or didn't care, and so as they as they surrounded themselves with followers that were all over the emotional scale, mostly rock bottom probably, they would be exposed to strong contrast and it would show some effects over time if they wouldn't take the time to recalibrate and realign. And that does show up first in irritation or dis-ease in terms of mood and eventually as dis-ease in the body. These are simply the mechanics of creation, which apply equally to the sage and the ignorant. The difference usually is that the sage is mentally stable because existential issue have been resolved once and for all and so while there will be ups and downs in terms of mood, it's highly unlikely that they will go on a full-blown emotional roller coaster ride. People tend to hold these gurus and sages to unrealistic, impossible standards. But as usual, since what manifests in your life is a reflection of your state of being, their manifestations don't lie. Look at their manifestations. Now, in yoga, they know about this, of course. So a yogi with anger issues or suffering from cancer would be an anomaly. They know about alignment, they know how to get back into alignment in case they are out of alignment, and they know that when they are in alignment, their body will thrive and everything will be taken care of from broader perspective. So back to your question about fixing attitude. Based on the vibe I was getting from you, my guess was that you were close to the lower end of the lower half of the emotional scale. And when you say you have anxiety issues, that would just confirm that. And TBH, that's usually where most people on spiritual forum seem to have their emotional set point, the lower half the scale. This place is no exception. You can see that by the kind of flak I regularly get when I post stuff that belongs to the upper end of the upper half of the scale. When I post stuff that is closer to the default, or neutral point at the center, contentment, that's where I usually get the most reactions of agreement. Now, if you understood what I have just said, you can basically answer your question about my attitude yourself. Will 'my' impersonal perspective make fixing my attitude unnecessary? In case you've never heard of the emotional scale, here's a reference:  Every stage on the scale comes with its characteristic feeling state, way of thinking, way of looking at the world. It's a specific state of being. People look at the same world in from many different states of being and so they see the world very differently, almost as if they would live in different worlds, and that is actually the case to some extent, because they only have access to those aspects of the world that match their particular state of being. The world is a big and diverse place. The world can give you all kinds of experiences. It's all there for your choosing. But if you are mostly hanging around at anger, you only have access to things that will cause you anger, if you are mostly hanging around at fear, you have only access to things that cause you fear and 'the' world (or more accurately 'your' world) is a dangerous und joyless place. And that's probably close to your average emotional set point. But if you are mostly hanging around at eagerness, then the world is an awesome place with more options and opportunities than you can count or ever could take advantage of. So you see, it's not the world or other people that's the problem, it's your attitude, your emotional set point, which determines the experiences you extract from the world and other people, that's the problem. The world is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 29, 2022 12:26:59 GMT -5
So, you think that my attitude needs fixing. I do suffer from anxiety. If, as you say, everyone can only have the perspective of self but not of another, then each is completely cut off from the rest of mankind. My anxiety, my suffering, is nobody else’s. Your attitude doesn’t need fixing because you have your impersonal perspective. Am I right?
By the way, I don’t think that all the cells of an organism tend selfishly to themselves the way we do. Theirs is an organic selfishness of Mother Nature. This is why the human body thrives. Ours is a screwed up selfishness of personal perspective. And this is the cause of the breakdown in the organism of mankind.
Bees are selfish in an organic way. So are ants. And that is how they live harmoniously in their hives and nests. If cells and insects can do it, why can’t we? I think cells and insects are free of personal perspective and guided by the impersonal perspective you speak of. You are right, the selfishness in nature is usually a bit different. This is the alignment issue again. I suspect your actual issue is not with selfishness but lack of alignment. There is a big difference between someone being selfish and in alignment (upper half of the emotional scale, e.g. content, eager, happy, joyous) and someone being selfish and out of alignment (lower half of the emotional scale, e.g. frustrated, worried, jealous, fearful). So I think you rather have an issue with humans mainly hanging out on the lower half of that scale than humans being selfish per se.
I have an issue? I thought we must stay off the ad hominem track.
Selfishness in nature is different. And you think alignment is the reason. Alignment of what? Isn't the person an illusion? This seems to be the general consensus in this forum.
How is it for you? Do you see yourself as an illusion? The psychological form (self) of Reefs is an illusion but there is the center of the awareness (observer). Are you saying that the observer is out of alignment?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 29, 2022 23:25:57 GMT -5
You are right, the selfishness in nature is usually a bit different. This is the alignment issue again. I suspect your actual issue is not with selfishness but lack of alignment. There is a big difference between someone being selfish and in alignment (upper half of the emotional scale, e.g. content, eager, happy, joyous) and someone being selfish and out of alignment (lower half of the emotional scale, e.g. frustrated, worried, jealous, fearful). So I think you rather have an issue with humans mainly hanging out on the lower half of that scale than humans being selfish per se. I have an issue? I thought we must stay off the ad hominem track.
Selfishness in nature is different. And you think alignment is the reason. Alignment of what? Isn't the person an illusion? This seems to be the general consensus in this forum.
How is it for you? Do you see yourself as an illusion? The psychological form (self) of Reefs is an illusion but there is the center of the awareness (observer). Are you saying that the observer is out of alignment?
The person is a perspective, and as such it is not an illusion. But the person is not an entity that exists in its own right, and as such it is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 30, 2022 8:53:07 GMT -5
I have an issue? I thought we must stay off the ad hominem track.
Selfishness in nature is different. And you think alignment is the reason. Alignment of what? Isn't the person an illusion? This seems to be the general consensus in this forum.
How is it for you? Do you see yourself as an illusion? The psychological form (self) of Reefs is an illusion but there is the center of the awareness (observer). Are you saying that the observer is out of alignment?
The person is a perspective, and as such it is not an illusion. But the person is not an entity that exists in its own right, and as such it is an illusion. The person is a perspective? Here again, you are not speaking in conventional terms.
A perspective is a point of view. A person is an individual.
If a person is not an entity (i.e. individual), how would you explain its illusory nature?
Spiritual speak is not useful when a conventional language is appropriated for esoteric dialogue. This is why not even the best minds could grasp what Krishnamurti was trying to convey in a 60 year-long attempt to pass on a simple fact: how our perception creates our existential reality.
The end result is his creation of a bunch of hoity toity “lights to themselves” espousing an otherness that has no relevance to the ending of the human mess.
Krishnamurti was someone who didn't see the inside of a university classroom, as you put it. As such, he can be excused.
What is your excuse?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 30, 2022 9:31:57 GMT -5
The person is a perspective, and as such it is not an illusion. But the person is not an entity that exists in its own right, and as such it is an illusion. The person is a perspective? Here again, you are not speaking in conventional terms. A perspective is a point of view. A person is an individual. If a person is not an entity (i.e. individual), how would you explain its illusory nature? Spiritual speak is not useful when a conventional language is appropriated for esoteric dialogue. This is why not even the best minds could grasp what Krishnamurti was trying to convey in a 60 year-long attempt to pass on a simple fact: how our perception creates our existential reality. The end result is his creation of a bunch of hoity toity “lights to themselves” espousing an otherness that has no relevance to the ending of the human mess.
Krishnamurti was someone who didn't see the inside of a university classroom, as you put it. As such, he can be excused.
What is your excuse?
How about this: a person is an idea or abstraction conjured up by the intellect. What a body is is actual, but there are no actual boundaries to a body (or to anything else for that matter.) The function of the intellect is to imagine and to imaginatively manipulate abstract distinctions, but because the process of shifting from the direct seeing of "what is" to seeing abstractions in the mind's eye is so gradual, people do not realize that they have shifted from body-knowing to head-knowing. They therefore fail to recognize the difference between what is imaginary and what is actual. What we are is actual, but what we imagine we are is imaginary. On this forum we distinguish between an SVP (separate volitional person) and THIS (the infinite undivided field of all being). A sage does not imagine that she is the thinker of thoughts or the doer of actions because she has penetrated the illusion of separateness and realized that the SVP was some sort of thought structure. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 30, 2022 12:28:44 GMT -5
The person is a perspective, and as such it is not an illusion. But the person is not an entity that exists in its own right, and as such it is an illusion. The person is a perspective? Here again, you are not speaking in conventional terms. A perspective is a point of view. A person is an individual. If a person is not an entity (i.e. individual), how would you explain its illusory nature? Spiritual speak is not useful when a conventional language is appropriated for esoteric dialogue. This is why not even the best minds could grasp what Krishnamurti was trying to convey in a 60 year-long attempt to pass on a simple fact: how our perception creates our existential reality. The end result is his creation of a bunch of hoity toity “lights to themselves” espousing an otherness that has no relevance to the ending of the human mess.
Krishnamurti was someone who didn't see the inside of a university classroom, as you put it. As such, he can be excused.
What is your excuse?
No, I am not using the dictionary definition, obviously. And I agree, if conventional terms suffice, we should use conventional terms and their dictionary definitions as much as possible to avoid confusion. There's no need to speak in riddles. Unfortunately, conventional terms usually have more than one meaning and are often not very precise. But in these dialogs here, precision of language is everything. That's why we have our own terms and phrases here which at times differ from the dictionary definition. And forget about this Krishnamurti dude. He's dead. You've got some people here that have at least the same spiritual depth and stature of a Krishnamurti and you can have a live interaction with them. So use your time wisely. |
|
E' once spun poor gopal up for a week or so with the crack that the Moon is based in "cloud storage". 
