|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2022 15:33:40 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?
Your personal perception does not "create your existential reality", nor is there any objective impersonal "existential reality". What you are alluding to is a question that is the driving force underlying all science and most of art and philosophy. How they doin'?  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jun 30, 2022 17:19:13 GMT -5
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?
nor is there any objective impersonal "existential reality". What you are alluding to is a question that is the driving force underlying all science and most of art and philosophy. How they doin'?  What is your definition of "personal perception"? Do you see the sky? You are a person, right? 8 billion individual persons also see the same sky. You are aware of being alive on planet Earth. This awareness is shared by everybody in the world.
What do you think your dog sees? It is not a person. It's existential reality is something else. I doubt it can see the sky let alone be aware of being alive on planet Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 30, 2022 18:13:56 GMT -5
Your personal perception does not "create your existential reality", nor is there any objective impersonal "existential reality". What you are alluding to is a question that is the driving force underlying all science and most of art and philosophy. How they doin'? What is your definition of "personal perception"? Do you see the sky? You are a person, right? 8 billion individual persons also see the same sky. You are aware of being alive on planet Earth. This awareness is shared by everybody in the world.
What do you think your dog sees? It is not a person. It's existential reality is something else. I doubt it can see the sky let alone be aware of being alive on planet Earth.
In this instance I mean the words "person" and "perception" in "personal perception" in their conventional sense, which can be defined, abstractly, by physical functionality, with the person ending at the boundary of their skin. In this, I'm meeting you where you are in terms of these abstractions. To reach the understanding I'm expressing these abstractions must all be recognized for what they are and at least temporarily set aside. Or, alternatively, any one of a potential number of altered states of consciousness can instantly change one's perspective on the nature of the boundary of the skin. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 1, 2022 15:30:33 GMT -5
What is your definition of "personal perception"? Do you see the sky? You are a person, right? 8 billion individual persons also see the same sky. You are aware of being alive on planet Earth. This awareness is shared by everybody in the world.
What do you think your dog sees? It is not a person. It's existential reality is something else. I doubt it can see the sky let alone be aware of being alive on planet Earth.
In this instance I mean the words "person" and "perception" in "personal perception" in their conventional sense, which can be defined, abstractly, by physical functionality, with the person ending at the boundary of their skin. In this, I'm meeting you where you are in terms of these abstractions. To reach the understanding I'm expressing these abstractions must all be recognized for what they are and at least temporarily set aside. Or, alternatively, any one of a potential number of altered states of consciousness can instantly change one's perspective on the nature of the boundary of the skin. I realize that you are being earnest and careful with your explanation. Let's see if I can follow you.
First of all, I don't believe in altered state of consciousness. You and I may not see "eye-to-eye" on some matters on consciousness, and that's fine. I won't argue with a Buddhist on state of consciousness either unless he is the pilot flying the Boeing taking me to Tokyo.
You see, my friend, the kind of spirituality that makes sense to me has to define the way I live in the real world. It is where the US Supreme Court makes its rulings, and where the rain falls from the sky. This world is populated by people whose conduct pose an existential threat to me. Ok, I am selfish and unwilling to accept a status quo that sucks.
What do you mean by an "altered state of consciousness"? Is it possible for me to see a different fundamental nature of reality? No. If I were to claim that I can see the truth in the nature of the self and you, as well as, the rest of the world don't, does that imply that my consciousness is altered? No. It's not that you can't see what I can see. You just don't see it because it is not important to you.
I don't like human suffering, not for me, not for anyone. I have had discussions on the internet with "spiritual people" who disagreed with me on that. They told me that they had been homeless and recounted their horrid experiences. Those hard times had been beneficial to them, made them "a better person" and appreciate life more.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 1, 2022 16:53:03 GMT -5
In this instance I mean the words "person" and "perception" in "personal perception" in their conventional sense, which can be defined, abstractly, by physical functionality, with the person ending at the boundary of their skin. In this, I'm meeting you where you are in terms of these abstractions. To reach the understanding I'm expressing these abstractions must all be recognized for what they are and at least temporarily set aside. Or, alternatively, any one of a potential number of altered states of consciousness can instantly change one's perspective on the nature of the boundary of the skin. I realize that you are being earnest and careful with your explanation. Let's see if I can follow you.
First of all, I don't believe in altered state of consciousness. You and I may not see "eye-to-eye" on some matters on consciousness, and that's fine. I won't argue with a Buddhist on state of consciousness either unless he is the pilot flying the Boeing taking me to Tokyo.
You see, my friend, the kind of spirituality that makes sense to me has to define the way I live in the real world. It is where the US Supreme Court makes its rulings, and where the rain falls from the sky. This world is populated by people whose conduct pose an existential threat to me. Ok, I am selfish and unwilling to accept a status quo that sucks. What do you mean by an "altered state of consciousness"? Is it possible for me to see a different fundamental nature of reality? No. If I were to claim that I can see the truth in the nature of the self and you, as well as, the rest of the world don't, does that imply that my consciousness is altered? No. It's not that you can't see what I can see. You just don't see it because it is not important to you.
I don't like human suffering, not for me, not for anyone. I have had discussions on the internet with "spiritual people" who disagreed with me on that. They told me that they had been homeless and recounted their horrid experiences. Those hard times had been beneficial to them, made them "a better person" and appreciate life more.
As far as to whether altered states of consciousness are possible, I'm not going to argue with you about it, if you're not interested, you're not interested. But as Billy Shakes put it "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  Human suffering, in and of itself, has no resolution. There is no utopia. This isn't to advocate for ignoring it though, as it is, of course, a fact on the ground, as in, it is undeniable. Does the suffering of others cause you pain? I don't disagree that spirituality can directly address suffering, both through facilitating material action or by comforting the sufferer. It's also possible though, to end suffering, once and for all, on an individual basis. Which doesn't, btw, mean that you will be ever free of pain from then on. When this happens, suffering is seen for what it is. Not ignored, met with real empathy as the situation demands, but not in such a way as to drag you into it. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 2, 2022 14:50:37 GMT -5
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. Thank you for your care in laying it all out in a succinct explanation. Your reasoning is fine. My difficulty lies in getting onboard with your theory.
Your definition of a person (in bold above) is a premise around which your theory is based. In the real world, a person is not an idea. You and I are people who live in the real world. It is not a metaverse. You get hit by a car, you bleed, cops close off the road, ambulance arrives to take you to the hospital, the emergency room gears up for your arrival. It’s a big deal.
My neighbor’s wife has just passed away and he wants me to attend a “Celebration of Life” gathering in her memory. I don’t want to go. Can I tell him that Martha was just an idea and he needs to get on with it? Members’ consensus in this forum is that I should attend the damn function. Seems to me that I am the only one in this forum whose response to a person’s death is consistent with your theory, one that I have difficulty swallowing.
Spirituality that is removed from the real world is a distraction. And when you practice being an abstraction in this forum but come on as real to the accountant doing your taxes, you are living a double life. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 2, 2022 15:14:57 GMT -5
I realize that you are being earnest and careful with your explanation. Let's see if I can follow you.
First of all, I don't believe in altered state of consciousness. You and I may not see "eye-to-eye" on some matters on consciousness, and that's fine. I won't argue with a Buddhist on state of consciousness either unless he is the pilot flying the Boeing taking me to Tokyo.
You see, my friend, the kind of spirituality that makes sense to me has to define the way I live in the real world. It is where the US Supreme Court makes its rulings, and where the rain falls from the sky. This world is populated by people whose conduct pose an existential threat to me. Ok, I am selfish and unwilling to accept a status quo that sucks. What do you mean by an "altered state of consciousness"? Is it possible for me to see a different fundamental nature of reality? No. If I were to claim that I can see the truth in the nature of the self and you, as well as, the rest of the world don't, does that imply that my consciousness is altered? No. It's not that you can't see what I can see. You just don't see it because it is not important to you.
I don't like human suffering, not for me, not for anyone. I have had discussions on the internet with "spiritual people" who disagreed with me on that. They told me that they had been homeless and recounted their horrid experiences. Those hard times had been beneficial to them, made them "a better person" and appreciate life more.
, if you're not interested, you're not interested. But as Billy Shakes put it "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."  Human suffering, in and of itself, has no resolution. There is no utopia. This isn't to advocate for ignoring it though, as it is, of course, a fact on the ground, as in, it is undeniable. Does the suffering of others cause you pain? I don't disagree that spirituality can directly address suffering, both through facilitating material action or by comforting the sufferer. It's also possible though, to end suffering, once and for all, on an individual basis. Which doesn't, btw, mean that you will be ever free of pain from then on. When this happens, suffering is seen for what it is. Not ignored, met with real empathy as the situation demands, but not in such a way as to drag you into it. You don't have to argue and convince me that altered states of consciousness are possible. The human consciousness alters constantly but not just for Joe and not for John. I have stated in this forum that consciousness changes across the board for all humanity every time we acquire new knowledge. The Buddha's consciousness would never be able to process a journey to the moon. His existential reality was a different one. He had no idea that the ground he was standing on was the surface of the Earth. Since then, our consciousness has evolved up till the present. And it will keep on changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 2, 2022 16:30:04 GMT -5
I realize that you are being earnest and careful with your explanation. Let's see if I can follow you.
First of all, I don't believe in altered state of consciousness. You and I may not see "eye-to-eye" on some matters on consciousness, and that's fine. I won't argue with a Buddhist on state of consciousness either unless he is the pilot flying the Boeing taking me to Tokyo.
You see, my friend, the kind of spirituality that makes sense to me has to define the way I live in the real world. It is where the US Supreme Court makes its rulings, and where the rain falls from the sky. This world is populated by people whose conduct pose an existential threat to me. Ok, I am selfish and unwilling to accept a status quo that sucks. What do you mean by an "altered state of consciousness"? Is it possible for me to see a different fundamental nature of reality? No. If I were to claim that I can see the truth in the nature of the self and you, as well as, the rest of the world don't, does that imply that my consciousness is altered? No. It's not that you can't see what I can see. You just don't see it because it is not important to you.
I don't like human suffering, not for me, not for anyone. I have had discussions on the internet with "spiritual people" who disagreed with me on that. They told me that they had been homeless and recounted their horrid experiences. Those hard times had been beneficial to them, made them "a better person" and appreciate life more.
As far as to whether altered states of consciousness are possible, I'm not going to argue with you about it, if you're not interested, you're not interested. But as Billy Shakes put it "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Human suffering, in and of itself, has no resolution. There is no utopia. This isn't to advocate for ignoring it though, as it is, of course, a fact on the ground, as in, it is undeniable. Does the suffering of others cause you pain? I don't disagree that spirituality can directly address suffering, both through facilitating material action or by comforting the sufferer. It's also possible though, to end suffering, once and for all, on an individual basis. Which doesn't, btw, mean that you will be ever free of pain from then on. When this happens, suffering is seen for what it is. Not ignored, met with real empathy as the situation demands, but not in such a way as to drag you into it. You don't know that. Utopia is an idea, an imagined opposite of our present condition of suffering. Utopia is mental escapism.
Suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Perhaps, you don't know what suffering is. Or you have experienced hardship and pain but don't regard it as a big deal, and consider it part and parcel of being human.
Yes, suffering of others causes me pain. Even the idiot driving like a fool and hurts himself bothers me. And when our country launches a just war maiming and killing people, that is the absolute pits for me. Being helpless and watching it going on is suffering. Won't you get upset watching your wife or child getting beaten up?
Every year hurricanes tear through the US southwest and upend the lives of thousands of people. And the Californian wildfires destroy lives like clockwork. What's wrong with people? Can't they see it coming? One time, I was in Bali. The sunsets were gorgeous at the resort but there was that damn volcano smouldering nearby. People live in villages around it even though it has erupted 5 times in 2017.
Do you think Krishnamurti and me are neurotics inflicted with algophobia (fear of suffering)? Buddhist too, but their condition is not as severe. They are only concerned about their own skins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2022 16:43:19 GMT -5
As far as to whether altered states of consciousness are possible, I'm not going to argue with you about it, if you're not interested, you're not interested. But as Billy Shakes put it "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Human suffering, in and of itself, has no resolution. There is no utopia. This isn't to advocate for ignoring it though, as it is, of course, a fact on the ground, as in, it is undeniable. Does the suffering of others cause you pain? I don't disagree that spirituality can directly address suffering, both through facilitating material action or by comforting the sufferer. It's also possible though, to end suffering, once and for all, on an individual basis. Which doesn't, btw, mean that you will be ever free of pain from then on. When this happens, suffering is seen for what it is. Not ignored, met with real empathy as the situation demands, but not in such a way as to drag you into it. You don't know that. Utopia is an idea, an imagined opposite of our present condition of suffering. Utopia is mental escapism.
Suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Perhaps, you don't know what suffering is. Or you have experienced hardship and pain but don't regard it as a big deal, and consider it part and parcel of being human.
Yes, suffering of others causes me pain. Even the idiot driving like a fool and hurts himself bothers me. And when our country launches a just war maiming and killing people, that is the absolute pits for me. Being helpless and watching it going on is suffering. Won't you get upset watching your wife or child getting beaten up?
Every year hurricanes tear through the US southwest and upend the lives of thousands of people. And the Californian wildfires destroy lives like clockwork. What's wrong with people? Can't they see it coming? One time, I was in Bali. The sunsets were gorgeous at the resort but there was that damn volcano smouldering nearby. People live in villages around it even though it has erupted 5 times in 2017.
Do you think Krishnamurti and me are neurotics inflicted with algophobia (fear of suffering)? Buddhist too, but their condition is not as severe. They are only concerned about their own skins.
Have you been professionally diagnosed with Algophobia? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2022 17:24:57 GMT -5
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. Thank you for your care in laying it all out in a succinct explanation. Your reasoning is fine. My difficulty lies in getting onboard with your theory.
Your definition of a person (in bold above) is a premise around which your theory is based. In the real world, a person is not an idea. You and I are people who live in the real world. It is not a metaverse. You get hit by a car, you bleed, cops close off the road, ambulance arrives to take you to the hospital, the emergency room gears up for your arrival. It’s a big deal.
My neighbor’s wife has just passed away and he wants me to attend a “Celebration of Life” gathering in her memory. I don’t want to go. Can I tell him that Martha was just an idea and he needs to get on with it? Members’ consensus in this forum is that I should attend the damn function. Seems to me that I am the only one in this forum whose response to a person’s death is consistent with your theory, one that I have difficulty swallowing.
Spirituality that is removed from the real world is a distraction. And when you practice being an abstraction in this forum but come on as real to the accountant doing your taxes, you are living a double life. It's good to see that you've come to your own decision now. Well done. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 2, 2022 17:50:45 GMT -5
As far as to whether altered states of consciousness are possible, I'm not going to argue with you about it, if you're not interested, you're not interested. But as Billy Shakes put it "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Human suffering, in and of itself, has no resolution. There is no utopia. This isn't to advocate for ignoring it though, as it is, of course, a fact on the ground, as in, it is undeniable. Does the suffering of others cause you pain? I don't disagree that spirituality can directly address suffering, both through facilitating material action or by comforting the sufferer. It's also possible though, to end suffering, once and for all, on an individual basis. Which doesn't, btw, mean that you will be ever free of pain from then on. When this happens, suffering is seen for what it is. Not ignored, met with real empathy as the situation demands, but not in such a way as to drag you into it. You don't have to argue and convince me that altered states of consciousness are possible. The human consciousness alters constantly but not just for Joe and not for John. I have stated in this forum that consciousness changes across the board for all humanity every time we acquire new knowledge. The Buddha's consciousness would never be able to process a journey to the moon. His existential reality was a different one. He had no idea that the ground he was standing on was the surface of the Earth. Since then, our consciousness has evolved up till the present. And it will keep on changing.
, I was responding, specifically, to this: First of all, I don't believe in altered state of consciousness. Now, I don't see you contradicting yourself here, but rather, flipping existential context. It's certainly valid to talk about either a personal state of consciousness, on one hand, or the general topic of human consciousness on another. To recap, I had asserted that your personal consciousness does not "create your existential reality" in response to your paraphrase of JK. My comment about how there are various alternative states of consciousness was to put what I meant by "person" in context, in that those states of consciousness can reveal exactly what ZD described in a way that is about as clear as it can get, here: 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.) This is yet a third context. Perhaps we could refer to it as the "cosmic" context.  |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 2, 2022 17:51:39 GMT -5
Thank you for your care in laying it all out in a succinct explanation. Your reasoning is fine. My difficulty lies in getting onboard with your theory.
Your definition of a person (in bold above) is a premise around which your theory is based. In the real world, a person is not an idea. You and I are people who live in the real world. It is not a metaverse. You get hit by a car, you bleed, cops close off the road, ambulance arrives to take you to the hospital, the emergency room gears up for your arrival. It’s a big deal.
My neighbor’s wife has just passed away and he wants me to attend a “Celebration of Life” gathering in her memory. I don’t want to go. Can I tell him that Martha was just an idea and he needs to get on with it? Members’ consensus in this forum is that I should attend the damn function. Seems to me that I am the only one in this forum whose response to a person’s death is consistent with your theory, one that I have difficulty swallowing.
Spirituality that is removed from the real world is a distraction. And when you practice being an abstraction in this forum but come on as real to the accountant doing your taxes, you are living a double life. It's good to see that you've come to your own decision now. Well done. I said that I don't want to go. It's not a decision. I have said this many times as a kid but ended up going because my parents had the final say and always insisted that I went.
All my life, I have been doing things under compulsion of one kind or another. A life of inner conflict. Even you want me to go despite the fact that you are spiritual and free.
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 2, 2022 17:58:07 GMT -5
You don't know that. Utopia is an idea, an imagined opposite of our present condition of suffering. Utopia is mental escapism.
Suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Perhaps, you don't know what suffering is. Or you have experienced hardship and pain but don't regard it as a big deal, and consider it part and parcel of being human.
Yes, suffering of others causes me pain. Even the idiot driving like a fool and hurts himself bothers me. And when our country launches a just war maiming and killing people, that is the absolute pits for me. Being helpless and watching it going on is suffering. Won't you get upset watching your wife or child getting beaten up?
Every year hurricanes tear through the US southwest and upend the lives of thousands of people. And the Californian wildfires destroy lives like clockwork. What's wrong with people? Can't they see it coming? One time, I was in Bali. The sunsets were gorgeous at the resort but there was that damn volcano smouldering nearby. People live in villages around it even though it has erupted 5 times in 2017.
Do you think Krishnamurti and me are neurotics inflicted with algophobia (fear of suffering)? Buddhist too, but their condition is not as severe. They are only concerned about their own skins.
Have you been professionally diagnosed with Algophobia? No. Can you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2022 18:03:55 GMT -5
Have you been professionally diagnosed with Algophobia? No. Can you? Can I what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2022 18:08:32 GMT -5
It's good to see that you've come to your own decision now. Well done. I said that I don't want to go. It's not a decision. I have said this many times as a kid but ended up going because my parents had the final say and always insisted that I went.
All my life, I have been doing things under compulsion of one kind or another. A life of inner conflict. Even you want me to go despite the fact that you are spiritual and free. Please don't put words in my mouth. I thought it was a good idea for you to visit Martha before she died, but that's because I could imagine that it would have meant a lot to her and it may have given you a new perspective. That moment has passed now. You've asked anyone you could what to do about the Celebration that you were invited to, and we all know that it's not up to anyone else what happens. |
|
