|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 13, 2019 7:36:32 GMT -5
Correct. Interestingly, in law, there's a similar distinction between natural person and legal/artificial person. Yes! I discovered this a couple of years ago. You know what the legal/artificial entity is popularly called? The 'strawman'. So when a natural person goes to court, they unwittingly agree to represent the strawman. If there is a conviction, the natural person chooses to represent the strawman...in jail. Lol. From what I understand, the strawman is also a tradeable entity, and IS traded. This all relates to how the system perpetuates unconsciousness... the 'natural person' is 'hidden' beneath the legal, fictitious person. It begins with the birth certificate. Common law and legality are quite different. One pertains to the natural person, and the natural person is still subject to laws such as 'do no harm' or 'what you reap, you sew'. Whereas legality pertains to all institutional, bureaucratic and abstract laws. The legal fictitious person...the straw man...only exists as an abstraction itself. Sorry, I just got a little excited that you knew this. Example: Krsnaraja vs. People of Spiritual Teachers in criminal complaint for perjury
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:46:09 GMT -5
I'll try to explain using Seth's model. In the same way that the ego (or outer self) is a tool of the inner self, so is the image you project in social interactions a tool of the ego. And in the same way that the inner self uses numerous egos, so does the ego project numerous such images. Just watch yourself when you go thru your day. Instead of invoking Seth's model, why not just explain in your own words? You’re creating mental overlays upon phenomenal arisings, that do not need to be there and that are not there in SR. And, an image, ‘projected’ or not, (the very idea of a ‘projected image’ hinges upon the fact of perception on the part of the one I’m engaging with, and that is NOT a known fact) does not equal the presence of an intermediary/entity.
This conversation makes it acutely clear why it’s important to see that the entire phenomenal world arises within/to Being, with no separation between the two. An 'entity/intermediary' only arises when delusion is present...when one is taking separation to be actual. It's the seeing through of separation, of the separate volitional person specifically. that ends all imaginings and all sense of an intermediary/entity who is present and who acts, behaves, does stuff that then, 'projects an image.' In SR, all of it, appearing people, the body/mind, personality traits, ways of being as movement and engagement with the appearing world happens, all of it, is just an arising to that which I really am, that which cannot be divided, that which knows no bounds. The only way an ‘intermediary’ or ‘entity’ gets imagined is if/when identification with the body/mind and any of its counterparts is in play. Absent that, it’s clearly seen to all just happen/unfold absent an imagined entity/intermediary....absent a thing/construct that is ‘projecting’ or ‘acting/doing.’ So, I have to imagine the presence of an entity/intermediary for that to happen? That's just not so. Again, this is why seeing the entire play of events as an arising within/to Consciousness is so important. It eliminates mind's need to invoke a thing/someone who does stuff, who acts as a go-between of sorts. SR reveals there is not such 'thing' actually there. Once that's been seen, you don't go back to imagining it's there again. It's entirely relevant to this conversation. Instead of taking it as 'litigation' why not just address what I'm saying? I'm not personally attacking you here, I'm just addressing the current ideas you're presenting and noting that they differ quite a lot from those you presented in the past. Seemingly, you at one point saw what I am now saying about an entity/intermediary. I'm not obsessed nor am I even intent on 'finding' major shifts in other peeps perspectives, rather, I'm merely addressing what appears to me to be a dramatic change from past posts to present in terms of message. In your past posts, you seemed to have a very good grasp on the fact that in SR, the intermediary goes....the entity gets seen through. Now you're arguing for the presence of both. I'm trying to understand how/why your message seems to have changed so divergently. Is there really something wrong with my wanting to discuss that? Yes. I find ZD's message that when it comes to _____________, all we can do is point incompatible with his insistence that he's realized 'it's all alive,' and again, I'm trying to understand. Okay, can you see that you're the one who is addressing the messenger vs. the message? I thought we going to try to steer clear of that? Why can't we just have a conversation where the ideas presented get addressed..? Why the need to go into a diatribe describing what you see to be my short-comings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 12:56:34 GMT -5
Of coure, I'm interacting socially right now, and I just finished conversing with my daughter over lunch....neither involved an imagined entity. That is what I'm saying is undeniable, see how you didn't deny it? Up front: there is no actual seperation between you and the ones you're socializing with, and all of the worldly context the socialization happens within is a creation of mind. What's undeniable is that there's something happening, and we use the language of the dream with terms like "functioning socially", to describe it. To see how I interpreted this notion of the "imagined intermediary", have you ever bought a car? The happening of social interaction in no way though equals the presence of 'an imagined intermediary' or an entity. In SR, it's precisely that thing, who, what, concept, entity that gets seen through. And in seeing it's not there, we don't then simply go back to imagining that it's there again. I'm kind of flabberghasted actually as to what is being asserted here.
There IS no-thing there. There really isn't. Even though it can seem so compellingly as though there is. Post SR, all imaginings that there is some-thing there, cease.
Again, This is why it's so important to see the 'totality' of the phenomenal arising world, complete with appearing people, body/mind, personality traits, social interactions, as empty ephemeral arisings within that which abides.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2019 13:15:51 GMT -5
That is what I'm saying is undeniable, see how you didn't deny it? Up front: there is no actual seperation between you and the ones you're socializing with, and all of the worldly context the socialization happens within is a creation of mind. What's undeniable is that there's something happening, and we use the language of the dream with terms like "functioning socially", to describe it. To see how I interpreted this notion of the "imagined intermediary", have you ever bought a car? The happening of social interaction in no way though equals the presence of 'an imagined intermediary' or an entity. In SR, it's precisely that thing, who, what, concept, entity that gets seen through. And in seeing it's not there, we don't then simply go back to imagining that it's there again. I'm kind of flabberghasted actually as to what is being asserted here.
There IS no-thing there. There really isn't. Even though it can seem so compellingly as though there is. Post SR, all imaginings that there is some-thing there, cease. Again, This is why it's so important to see the 'totality' of the phenomenal arising world, complete with appearing people, body/mind, personality traits, social interactions, as empty ephemeral arisings within that which abides.
Perhaps re-read the 2nd paragraph of what you responded to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 13:56:50 GMT -5
The happening of social interaction in no way though equals the presence of 'an imagined intermediary' or an entity. In SR, it's precisely that thing, who, what, concept, entity that gets seen through. And in seeing it's not there, we don't then simply go back to imagining that it's there again. I'm kind of flabberghasted actually as to what is being asserted here.
There IS no-thing there. There really isn't. Even though it can seem so compellingly as though there is. Post SR, all imaginings that there is some-thing there, cease. Again, This is why it's so important to see the 'totality' of the phenomenal arising world, complete with appearing people, body/mind, personality traits, social interactions, as empty ephemeral arisings within that which abides.
Perhaps re-read the 2nd paragraph of what you responded to. Yeah, that's what I predominantly responded to...and I stand by my point; that socializing happens, in no way means the presence of an entity, imagined or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 13, 2019 22:51:43 GMT -5
Correct. Interestingly, in law, there's a similar distinction between natural person and legal/artificial person. Yes! I discovered this a couple of years ago. You know what the legal/artificial entity is popularly called? The 'strawman'. So when a natural person goes to court, they unwittingly agree to represent the strawman. If there is a conviction, the natural person chooses to represent the strawman...in jail. Lol. From what I understand, the strawman is also a tradeable entity, and IS traded. This all relates to how the system perpetuates unconsciousness... the 'natural person' is 'hidden' beneath the legal, fictitious person. It begins with the birth certificate. Common law and legality are quite different. One pertains to the natural person, and the natural person is still subject to laws such as 'do no harm' or 'what you reap, you sew'. Whereas legality pertains to all institutional, bureaucratic and abstract laws. The legal fictitious person...the straw man...only exists as an abstraction itself. Sorry, I just got a little excited that you knew this. It gives the term 'straw man discussions' a whole new meaning!
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 13, 2019 23:02:40 GMT -5
Oh, I see. The only question I have is, how is this guy still alive? He's never slipped once? Once is all it takes. I didn't get the impression he doesn't care if he lives or dies. He strikes me as an adrenaline junkie who has learned to compartmentalize his fear. Could be. While speaking to a group of students, he talks about when he was younger being absolutely terrified to speak in front of a group...but there he is, obviously over the fear, doing it fine. So maybe it's the same with the rope free climbing. He does talk about knowing at any moment while climbing, he could die and says he's ok with that.
It was interesting, when they did an MRI on his brain, his amygdala apparently has barely any activity at all.
I bet his amygdala won't stand a chance when he's with a sexy girl.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 14, 2019 5:59:52 GMT -5
Yes! I discovered this a couple of years ago. You know what the legal/artificial entity is popularly called? The 'strawman'. So when a natural person goes to court, they unwittingly agree to represent the strawman. If there is a conviction, the natural person chooses to represent the strawman...in jail. Lol. From what I understand, the strawman is also a tradeable entity, and IS traded. This all relates to how the system perpetuates unconsciousness... the 'natural person' is 'hidden' beneath the legal, fictitious person. It begins with the birth certificate. Common law and legality are quite different. One pertains to the natural person, and the natural person is still subject to laws such as 'do no harm' or 'what you reap, you sew'. Whereas legality pertains to all institutional, bureaucratic and abstract laws. The legal fictitious person...the straw man...only exists as an abstraction itself. Sorry, I just got a little excited that you knew this. It gives the term 'straw man discussions' a whole new meaning! I happen to agree with your views on identity. As a customer in a restaurant I know how to behave as a customer and wait my turn and be polite. As a male at a swimming pool I know not to walk into the female changing room. As an adult in the store I know it's not appropriate to lay on the floor playing with a toy or wander round naked. As a civilized citizen, I know it's not okay to fart noisily in public. There are countless examples, and our identity beliefs about who/what we are, are constantly playing out. Of course, there is a level, or context, in which identity can be seen to be false/illusion, and this is what the spiritual exploration is all about. And there may be quiet precious moments of absence, but perhaps even then, if the quiet moment is in the park, we still know to keep clothes on! And then at the opposite end, there are folks that take their identity beliefs as stone cold objective fact.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 14, 2019 9:51:37 GMT -5
Perhaps re-read the 2nd paragraph of what you responded to. Yeah, that's what I predominantly responded to...and I stand by my point; that socializing happens, in no way means the presence of an entity, imagined or otherwise. Have you ever bought a car? Has your name ever been on a mortgage for a house or some other type of loan?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 9:54:29 GMT -5
As mayor you become the whole of New York? Without the Mayor of New York's signature, activities to serve the people of New York stop. Money from Federal banks use in serving the constituents of New York cease flowing. There's chaos. The police department won't get their salaries. Incidents of crime goes up. Show me a City without a Mayor & I will show you a City in shatters. If Philippine President Duterte wants to know New York City, he visits the Mayor.. Irrelevant. Nobody becomes a city, even figuratively or metaphorically.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 14, 2019 10:00:00 GMT -5
That's the principle of non - dualism. I accept that reasoning if I am an advocate of non - duality. The principle of duality does not accept that. In the beginning there was only Adam. Wholeness. Adam felt lonely. So, this Wholeness took from Adam a rib and came into being, Eve. So, they became two. Adam & Eve. The latter is the fragment. I am only part of the Wholeness. I am Eve, the fragment taken from the rib of Adam (Wholeness ). So, sometimes you are wholeness and sometimes you are fragmented? I never claim I am wholeness. I am a part of that wholeness. Why are you wholeness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 10:05:23 GMT -5
So awareness or E feels compassion for the beat dog, unadulterated compassion or is compasion not a real feeling? To the extent that compassion is an outpouring of Love, it is genuine. There is a compassion for others that originates in empathy. This is a distortion which is uniquely self centered. Responding to illusion as though it were actual is not the correct response to suffering. ***feeling the noose tighten a bit*** Funny. Notice the question was who “feels.” If we're making a distinction between the person (the some nothing or whatever, we can debate the more meaningful term at another time) and awareness, we can come closer to the truth with something like the person feels and awareness witnesses. Basically, the feeling is occurring in awareness, not to awareness and even that is not very close. But that wasn't my point in this thread. I was pointing out that by reacting to a story, and emotions are often a symptom of a reaction, the story is afforded “truthiness,” to borrow your term. In this case, if you backtrack on the thread, we were talking about figgles feeling compassion for a child molester (the story).
Compassion and empathy are synonyms. So I'm assuming in this case you're setting aside a special definition for compassion and empathy, compassion you’re defining as an outpouring of love (awareness is quite often described as love) and empathy is a “distortion of mind". And your argument is that the SR express love and the non-SR, like me, and a few others express the latter out of selfishness which is a little insulting but okay, the truth hurts. Now in my mind, Laughy, had already conceded that SR folk retain the same conditioning they had before SR. So if you're an ass before SR, you're still an ass. This his how he accounted for some SR folk being d$$cks, acting very unsagely, making unsavory comments, making fun of others, questioning their intelligence, mocking their logic, etc.
I stated that I should have at that point, after his very fine explanation, shut my trap, but I was a d$$ck and decided to exercise my ego a bit and strut, very unsagely behavior which I attribute to me being far from SR. But now you argue that Laughy is incorrect, and I'm extrapolating here, that the d$$ckness, cool word huh, is NOT from conditioning but an outpouring of love because this is the emotion SR express.
Now others might argue that making insulting comments does not come from emotion, but out of frustration, I classify frustration, as a relative of anger, but we can debate this. Still, I am deducing from your argument, that only this special case of compassion is the only "genuine" emotion, so the insults must come from this special form of compassion in the case of SR folk.
My question to you is, should I conclude that the insulting comments, which by the way, I’m often guilty of as well, in the case of the SR come from compassion, not conditioning? Now please feel free to reply but as I stated to fig, I've ODed on zazeniac. So I'll probably read your replies, but I won't respond for quite some time, until I get over myself a bit.
Yes, the noose is so tight now.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 10:11:28 GMT -5
I'm just relieved that there's one who isn't looking around for a solid limb to throw a rope over. Isn't it time to knock this narrative on the head? Put the rope down and back away slowly....
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 14, 2019 10:13:59 GMT -5
Callous, uncaring, cruel frog. Please excuse me while I go inventory the torches and the pitchforks. You'll need a sturdy rope too! I'll go and burgle free solo dude's house next time he's on that big rock.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2019 10:14:50 GMT -5
The point is that you are Wholeness and not a slice of wholeness. As such, you have no name. I know your point. Are you still fascinated?
|
|