|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 9, 2024 9:44:07 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see Adya's realization 'status' as diminished by this, but as said, my view on 'realization' is a bit softer than yours. I do agree with you that realization is transformative, a quantum leap, instantaneous, and there's no way back from it. But....darn it....I find myself agreeing with the chatbot's interpretation (maybe it was reading my mind lol). I'll talk about this more in my next reply to you. Let me explain my perspective: I'm a big fan of Campbell's "Mastery of the the 2 worlds" model. You need to always keep this in mind when you read my comments about other teachers or gurus, or else it won't make sense or seem dismissive and one-uppish. The two worlds are the relative realm and the absolute realm. Mastery here means that you move with great ease, can go back and forth between these two realms or contexts or perspectives without getting attached to or lost in either. In fact, the next step in Campbell's model is the disappearance of that distinction altogether. That's Zhuangzi's roaming freely stage. That's why I talk about deliberate creation and non-duality, even though there's no actual connection between them. But they are two sides of the same coin. If you only exclusively focus on one, your perspective will become lopsided and your perspective and advice either banal and shallow (the relative side) or impractical and out of touch with real every day life (the absolute side). Now, if you use that model and look into the spiritual teachers scene, what you will usually see is that teachers are only masters of one world. In the new age self-help and even yoga scene, it's the relative realm. In the advaita non-duality scene, it's the absolute realm. So those teachers are not whole beings. That's why you have a lot of sick gurus in the advaita scene and a lot of egomaniacs and spiritual materialists in the self-help scene. So, just for the sake of argument, let's say Adya has mastery of the absolute realm. But the fact that he has been in severe pain for the past 20 years shows that he hasn't got mastery of the relative realm. So he's sending out a mixed message. It's not a message of total well-being, total peace and ease and joy, obviously. Fundamentally, it's not much different with RM, Niz and RK except for the fact that they didn't complain, they were fully rooted in the absolute realm. That seems to be the main difference. RM, RK and Niz were predominantly living in the absolute context, and only occasionally visited the relative context. With the YouTube gurus it seems to be the other way around. They seem to be predominantly living in the relative context (aka "ordinary and humbled human beings like everybody else") and only occasional visitors of the absolute context, some may even just speak from memory when they talk about the absolute context (certainly Jeff, not sure about Adya anymore). So you often have gurus who are authorities in the absolute realm, but who can't take care of themselves in the relative realm. And that's just unnecessary. Especially when they look down on everything that relates to the relative realm, like ignoring physical pain as if it weren't something important that should be dealt with. So there's a lot of mixed messages coming from these gurus and they often give very impractical and (if you understand LOA) illogical advice on day to day matters. Point being, if you only aim for mastery of the absolute realm, you are selling yourself and your followers short. It's going to be a one-dimensional message or teaching that produces one-dimensional, unbalanced beings. But if you teach both, then you have a clear and pure message and the result are whole and balanced beings. That's why I stick with Abe and Advaita. I basically agree. You explained your view well here. I have a sense that I take a slightly softer view on something you've said, I think it relates to the idea of 'choice', but I'm not in the mood to try and pinpoint it. I may also see more bridges between 'relative' and 'absolute' than you, but I still agree that shifting from one to the other is a quantum leap. One simply cannot 'do' their way into 'being'. Practically speaking, I only ever offer 'relative' advice to the friends that occasionally mention to me that they are struggling with something. Maybe it's partly a cultural thing, I originate from South London, grounded pub culture, and people want to be given something practical to do when they have a problem (people are very open to meditation now). However, I note Eckhart Tolle has slightly seeped into the collective consciousness, and it always gives me a little pleasure when someone 'randomly' brings him up. So I feel these days that most people's paths (in my old part of the world at least) are an odd enmeshment of 'relative' and 'absolute'. In a sense, their relative problems are opening a door for absolute 'solution'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2024 12:09:49 GMT -5
The apparent confusion clears up nicely if you stop believing ideas from some lady with a cringy fake accent, who claimed that she was "channeling" an entity. Not sure why that is considered a source of truth. Most of us here could produce the same kind of idea stream, by simply journaling. But we wouldn't think to elevate it to a kind of religion. Ah, finally, the big reveal!  How have you been, Robert? I see you are still the same old crusader.
What's bringing you here this time? And what's up with this donning of fake personas? You don't seem to be very good at it. You always leave a broad trail of breadcrumbs left and right that lead back to your true identity.
I'll give you a few hints for next time's hide and seek game:
1) Watch your mannerisms.
2) Stay off of topics that easily trigger you. 3) Stay away from members that easily trigger you.
4) Don't come here with an ax to grind, or else you will forget points 1-3 in the heat of the moment. Also, I think you are onto something with the non-comparative and non-competitive angle. You're on the right track with that idea. You just need to actually implement it.
Enjoy your stay and try to honor the no crusades rule this time!
R
Well, that's one way to avoid the point. But you're onto something, I'll admit that. There have been some account games and experiments. The intended purpose was not to hide identity (like you do for yourself, apparently?), but to thwart pigeonholing and ban threats, which show up when a user gets a little too creative, or when the moderator takes that belief-castle too seriously and applies the unconscious "Law of Projection" – ie, "crusades for me but not for thee". I don't think anybody new is going to become a regular poster. Only stirring the pot, having some fun, running some experiments. No seekers nor gurus were harmed during filming. I see the points in your hint list there. They are good to keep in mind when watching myself. At the same time, there are other reasons someone might want to tangle with your posts, besides being "triggered". I don't think you need to divide Life in two (absolute and relative) and build a different paradigm to have a good life in the latter "material" realm. Would those ideas from the channeler, or wherever -- these health-related ideas for example -- would they survive an application of Byron Katie's "are you sure?" Don't answer, I'm just suggesting it for private consideration. Have a laugh at our spiritual egos (including you moderators). Cheers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2024 12:29:04 GMT -5
As Richard Rose said: "doubt is sacred".
If anyone pushes a "know-it-all" belief system, there is going to be push-back. It's not personal.
Questioning things from different angles, and admitting that YOU DONT KNOW is much more valuable, unless your goal is to sell books or pablum to the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 9, 2024 20:02:40 GMT -5
Ah, finally, the big reveal! How have you been, Robert? I see you are still the same old crusader.
What's bringing you here this time? And what's up with this donning of fake personas? You don't seem to be very good at it. You always leave a broad trail of breadcrumbs left and right that lead back to your true identity.
I'll give you a few hints for next time's hide and seek game:
1) Watch your mannerisms.
2) Stay off of topics that easily trigger you. 3) Stay away from members that easily trigger you.
4) Don't come here with an ax to grind, or else you will forget points 1-3 in the heat of the moment. Also, I think you are onto something with the non-comparative and non-competitive angle. You're on the right track with that idea. You just need to actually implement it.
Enjoy your stay and try to honor the no crusades rule this time!
R
Well, that's one way to avoid the point. But you're onto something, I'll admit that. There have been some account games and experiments. The intended purpose was not to hide identity (like you do for yourself, apparently?), but to thwart pigeonholing and ban threats, which show up when a user gets a little too creative, or when the moderator takes that belief-castle too seriously and applies the unconscious "Law of Projection" – ie, "crusades for me but not for thee". I don't think anybody new is going to become a regular poster. Only stirring the pot, having some fun, running some experiments. No seekers nor gurus were harmed during filming. I see the points in your hint list there. They are good to keep in mind when watching myself. At the same time, there are other reasons someone might want to tangle with your posts, besides being "triggered". I don't think you need to divide Life in two (absolute and relative) and build a different paradigm to have a good life in the latter "material" realm. Would those ideas from the channeler, or wherever -- these health-related ideas for example -- would they survive an application of Byron Katie's "are you sure?" Don't answer, I'm just suggesting it for private consideration. Have a laugh at our spiritual egos (including you moderators). Cheers. With specific regard to absolute and relative, I also see it as a paradoxical entangled 'relationship'. In one sense, a clear division, in another sense, not-separate, in yet another sense, one and the same. I spent long hours here some years ago talking about this, and have no wish to repeat that. It's a mess of concepts. But in terms of practicality, I believe it's fairly simple...if what we are doing is unweaving conditioning....whether it's meditation, BK, EFT...I'd say it is basically pointing in the 'right' direction ('right' being a relative and flawed concept). I see Abe-Hicks as useful too in this regard, but am fine to agree to disagree on that 🙂 My path seems to go through cycles/waves. I know what it's like to pick up tools, I know what it's like to dissolve into being. I seem to have no control over these cycles/waves. Just as surfers have no control over when the waves come. There's a time to paddle like crazy, a time to sit out back, a time to ride the wave, and a time to sit on the beach and witness. Again, I come back to my belief about how unique each of our spiritual paths are. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 9, 2024 20:34:17 GMT -5
Ah, finally, the big reveal! How have you been, Robert? I see you are still the same old crusader.
What's bringing you here this time? And what's up with this donning of fake personas? You don't seem to be very good at it. You always leave a broad trail of breadcrumbs left and right that lead back to your true identity.
I'll give you a few hints for next time's hide and seek game:
1) Watch your mannerisms.
2) Stay off of topics that easily trigger you. 3) Stay away from members that easily trigger you.
4) Don't come here with an ax to grind, or else you will forget points 1-3 in the heat of the moment. Also, I think you are onto something with the non-comparative and non-competitive angle. You're on the right track with that idea. You just need to actually implement it.
Enjoy your stay and try to honor the no crusades rule this time!
R
Well, that's one way to avoid the point. But you're onto something, I'll admit that. There have been some account games and experiments. The intended purpose was not to hide identity (like you do for yourself, apparently?), but to thwart pigeonholing and ban threats, which show up when a user gets a little too creative, or when the moderator takes that belief-castle too seriously and applies the unconscious "Law of Projection" – ie, "crusades for me but not for thee". I don't think anybody new is going to become a regular poster. Only stirring the pot, having some fun, running some experiments. No seekers nor gurus were harmed during filming. I see the points in your hint list there. They are good to keep in mind when watching myself. At the same time, there are other reasons someone might want to tangle with your posts, besides being "triggered". I don't think you need to divide Life in two (absolute and relative) and build a different paradigm to have a good life in the latter "material" realm. Would those ideas from the channeler, or wherever -- these health-related ideas for example -- would they survive an application of Byron Katie's "are you sure?" Don't answer, I'm just suggesting it for private consideration. Have a laugh at our spiritual egos (including you moderators). Cheers. IOW, you are up to no good. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 9, 2024 21:42:36 GMT -5
As Richard Rose said: "doubt is sacred". If anyone pushes a "know-it-all" belief system, there is going to be push-back. It's not personal. Questioning things from different angles, and admitting that YOU DONT KNOW is much more valuable, unless your goal is to sell books or pablum to the masses. Then Rose basically disqualified himself from knowing the absolute truth. Saying that doubt is sacred is like saying the intellect is sacred.
You see, what you are suggesting is the rational approach. And that is good advice as long as we are talking about relative truths and relative knowing. In that sense, I agree.
But as soon as we are talking about absolute knowing, as is the case with SR, the rational approach fails. Because the rational approach limits you to what the intellect can grasp, i.e. 'thingness'. You will never get to 'suchness' with the rational approach, via the the intellect. Because 'suchness' is prior to 'thingness', prior to the intellect, prior to rational arguments.
Imagine Niz or RM saying: "Question everything I say and look at everything I say from different angles. Doubt is sacred!" They don't say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite: "Trust the guru, have unwavering faith in the words of the guru! Don't doubt!" Or imagine Niz or RM saying: "It seems to me that I AM THAT and that the SELF is all there is. But what do I know?!" They don't say that. They make absolute statements of absolute facts: "There is only the Self. I am That."
So you see, there's some deep contextual confusion in your and Rose's perspective. In fact, what you suggest is the exact same combination of ignorance and arrogance that Laughter mentioned in his post about the medical community which prevents further insights and realizations about the nature of reality.
That's the folly of the rational approach and skepticism, they question everything, except the rational approach and skepticism. And so it's just another dogma, another belief system. And as any other belief system, it's just another donkey tethering post, as they say in Zen. Don't be a donkey, Robert!
Don't question everything. Instead, pay attention to your inner guidance and go beyond the rational mind. To know yourself, you have to be yourself, not question everything. To realize God you have to be God. Only the Infinite as the Infinite can realize the Infinite via the eyes of the Infinite. Which means, neither self/SVP nor intellect play any role in SR. They all have to be left behind.
The intellect is a tool for relative knowledge. Don't make it your master. The intellect cannot grasp absolute knowledge. And only absolute knowledge of who you are can give you peace of mind. And so the intellect and the rational approach cannot give you peace of mind. Which means the intellect, the rational mind, is not the right tool. It's just going to make you smug and keep you forever discontent. As Zhuangzi used to say, there is no end to relative knowledge and therefore to end to questioning relative knowledge.
In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2024 0:26:06 GMT -5
As Richard Rose said: "doubt is sacred". If anyone pushes a "know-it-all" belief system, there is going to be push-back. It's not personal. Questioning things from different angles, and admitting that YOU DONT KNOW is much more valuable, unless your goal is to sell books or pablum to the masses. Then Rose basically disqualified himself from knowing the absolute truth. Saying that doubt is sacred is like saying the intellect is sacred.
You see, what you are suggesting is the rational approach. And that is good advice as long as we are talking about relative truths and relative knowing. In that sense, I agree.
But as soon as we are talking about absolute knowing, as is the case with SR, the rational approach fails. Because the rational approach limits you to what the intellect can grasp, i.e. 'thingness'. You will never get to 'suchness' with the rational approach, via the the intellect. Because 'suchness' is prior to 'thingness', prior to the intellect, prior to rational arguments.
Imagine Niz or RM saying: "Question everything I say and look at everything I say from different angles. Doubt is sacred!" They don't say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite: "Trust the guru, have unwavering faith in the words of the guru! Don't doubt!" Or imagine Niz or RM saying: "It seems to me that I AM THAT and that the SELF is all there is. But what do I know?!" They don't say that. They make absolute statements of absolute facts: "There is only the Self. I am That."
So you see, there's some deep contextual confusion in your and Rose's perspective. In fact, what you suggest is the exact same combination of ignorance and arrogance that Laughter mentioned in his post about the medical community which prevents further insights and realizations about the nature of reality.
That's the folly of the rational approach and skepticism, they question everything, except the rational approach and skepticism. And so it's just another dogma, another belief system. And as any other belief system, it's just another donkey tethering post, as they say in Zen. Don't be a donkey, Robert!
Don't question everything. Instead, pay attention to your inner guidance and go beyond the rational mind. To know yourself, you have to be yourself, not question everything. To realize God you have to be God. Only the Infinite as the Infinite can realize the Infinite via the eyes of the Infinite. Which means, neither self/SVP nor intellect play any role in SR. They all have to be left behind.
The intellect is a tool for relative knowledge. Don't make it your master. The intellect cannot grasp absolute knowledge. And only absolute knowledge of who you are can give you peace of mind. And so the intellect and the rational approach cannot give you peace of mind. Which means the intellect, the rational mind, is not the right tool. It's just going to make you smug and keep you forever discontent. As Zhuangzi used to say, there is no end to relative knowledge and therefore to end to questioning relative knowledge.
In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.
This is off the mark on too many things, so I lose energy to tangle with it. I agree some with your points about limits of intellect, but I know that already. You're wrong about where I'm at, or what I meant by doubt, or what Mr. Rose meant by doubt. It's too tiresome to have to explain who I am, to someone who wants to pretend I'm something else. Ramana and Nisargadatta did say things about trust vs verify, surrender vs self-inquiry, and the not-knowing. But I'm not going to explain it. These theories you were filling pages with - those are intellectual theories by my view. They may not be scientific theories, but it's still a bunch of ideas you think you "know". So to turn that around and tell me how I shouldn't be attached to intellect. ... ?? About this attempt to dox me, or whatever it it is. "Robert is a donkey." I'm not getting the appeal. But it brings up this topic of anonymity on forums like this, which I've been questioning and discussing with some friends. In some countries, there's been talk of forcing people to use their real identities on social media. It seems like it might help things. There are some people on this site, or connected to it, who have put themselves forward as teachers or guides in some way. They are not anonymous. We can see their names, faces, biographies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be anonymous. I think if you really want to teach these ideas about abundance/alignment, etc., you have to do it by example. Less talk, more demonstration. I would be genuinely psyched to see a guy (or gal) living a healthy looking life, radiating goo₫ vibes, and saying: here's how I did it, try X, Y, Z. But an anonymous internet account, just talking and saying oh that guy had a problem he must not know about my theories ... I don't think it's going to convince many people. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2024 1:10:18 GMT -5
As Richard Rose said: "doubt is sacred". If anyone pushes a "know-it-all" belief system, there is going to be push-back. It's not personal. Questioning things from different angles, and admitting that YOU DONT KNOW is much more valuable, unless your goal is to sell books or pablum to the masses. There's a subtle distinction between not-knowing and doubt, and my guess is that Rose was referring to the former. Disbelief is simply belief with a "not" in front of it. In the quiescent suspension of opinion, attitude and conditioned thought patterns is a potential space for clarity. For a seeker this is only a means to an end. A finder knows that this is not about some beliefs being better or worse than others, but rather, that, ultimately, none of them have any real meaning, and are, existentially speaking, entirely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2024 1:24:16 GMT -5
Then Rose basically disqualified himself from knowing the absolute truth. Saying that doubt is sacred is like saying the intellect is sacred.
You see, what you are suggesting is the rational approach. And that is good advice as long as we are talking about relative truths and relative knowing. In that sense, I agree.
But as soon as we are talking about absolute knowing, as is the case with SR, the rational approach fails. Because the rational approach limits you to what the intellect can grasp, i.e. 'thingness'. You will never get to 'suchness' with the rational approach, via the the intellect. Because 'suchness' is prior to 'thingness', prior to the intellect, prior to rational arguments.
Imagine Niz or RM saying: "Question everything I say and look at everything I say from different angles. Doubt is sacred!" They don't say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite: "Trust the guru, have unwavering faith in the words of the guru! Don't doubt!" Or imagine Niz or RM saying: "It seems to me that I AM THAT and that the SELF is all there is. But what do I know?!" They don't say that. They make absolute statements of absolute facts: "There is only the Self. I am That."
So you see, there's some deep contextual confusion in your and Rose's perspective. In fact, what you suggest is the exact same combination of ignorance and arrogance that Laughter mentioned in his post about the medical community which prevents further insights and realizations about the nature of reality.
That's the folly of the rational approach and skepticism, they question everything, except the rational approach and skepticism. And so it's just another dogma, another belief system. And as any other belief system, it's just another donkey tethering post, as they say in Zen. Don't be a donkey, Robert!
Don't question everything. Instead, pay attention to your inner guidance and go beyond the rational mind. To know yourself, you have to be yourself, not question everything. To realize God you have to be God. Only the Infinite as the Infinite can realize the Infinite via the eyes of the Infinite. Which means, neither self/SVP nor intellect play any role in SR. They all have to be left behind. The intellect is a tool for relative knowledge. Don't make it your master. The intellect cannot grasp absolute knowledge. And only absolute knowledge of who you are can give you peace of mind. And so the intellect and the rational approach cannot give you peace of mind. Which means the intellect, the rational mind, is not the right tool. It's just going to make you smug and keep you forever discontent. As Zhuangzi used to say, there is no end to relative knowledge and therefore to end to questioning relative knowledge. In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.
This is off the mark on too many things, so I lose energy to tangle with it. I agree some with your points about limits of intellect, but I know that already. You're wrong about where I'm at, or what I meant by doubt, or what Mr. Rose meant by doubt. It's too tiresome to have to explain who I am, to someone who wants to pretend I'm something else. Ramana and Nisargadatta did say things about trust vs verify, surrender vs self-inquiry, and the not-knowing. But I'm not going to explain it. These theories you were filling pages with - those are intellectual theories by my view. They may not be scientific theories, but it's still a bunch of ideas you think you "know". So to turn that around and tell me how I shouldn't be attached to intellect. ... ?? About this attempt to dox me, or whatever it it is. "Robert is a donkey." I'm not getting the appeal. But it brings up this topic of anonymity on forums like this, which I've been questioning and discussing with some friends. In some countries, there's been talk of forcing people to use their real identities on social media. It seems like it might help things. There are some people on this site, or connected to it, who have put themselves forward as teachers or guides in some way. They are not anonymous. We can see their names, faces, biographies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be anonymous. I think if you really want to teach these ideas about abundance/alignment, etc., you have to do it by example. Less talk, more demonstration. I would be genuinely psyched to see a guy (or gal) living a healthy looking life, radiating goo₫ vibes, and saying: here's how I did it, try X, Y, Z. But an anonymous internet account, just talking and saying oh that guy had a problem he must not know about my theories ... I don't think it's going to convince many people. Robert,
I can't see an actual counter-point in your reply. All I see is ad hominems. That's not a good trend.
And what's up with your psychopath comment earlier? And your confession of trolling? From a moderator perspective, this all comes across like you are looking for trouble.
You see, there's a long list of reasons already that would get you banned and sent to Ignoristan on any other decent forum right away. But I let it all stand. You are still here. You are still able to post and interact with everyone as you please. In fact, you are allowed to openly complain about moderation and even personally attack a moderator. How many forums out there allow you to do that?
So I think you (and some other malcontents here) who are unhappy with how the forum is run should take a step back from time to time, do some comparisons with other forums and then appreciate what you've got here. And if it is not to your liking what you find here, go find another place instead of trying to remodel this place. Because this place is a very special place in the entire internet. If it wasn't, then people who got banned or walked away in frustration wouldn't try to get back in here all the time.
Take it easy, no one is after you.
(robertk was your last official screen name, that's why I am addressing you as Robert to avoid any confusion)
R |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2024 1:39:51 GMT -5
There is a conceit in the current medical establishment when it comes to the mind/body split, and the bias towards the primacy of focus on the physical mechanisms of the individuated body. Assuming no major cultural discontinuity (like, say, that happened in Roman literature, mathematics and engineering after the fall),it's easy to imagine some future, progressed understanding of the effect of the mind on the body that will make the current pharma industry seem to some future medical establishment the way that the current establishment derides the past use of leeches, laudanum, and all manner of electrical quackaery. So it seems to me that it's really just this simple: intellect has no understanding of what it is ignorant of. True cultural humility (as opposed to the existential, requiring pointing) acknowledges this without demonizing some of the amazing accomplishments achieved via intellect. The flip-side to that is to layer over the ignorance with an arrogant attachment to what people THINK they know. Scientism is very strong in Western culture. Even on a spiritual forum like this one, which surprises me every time.
SDP mentioned Kali Yuga, he thinks we are in Kali Yuga. I don't think so. Kali Yuga is not a technological age. We are certainly in Dwapara Yuga already, which is the technological age. The Yuga theory is linked to astronomy, it's the cyclical view of history and the rise and fall of civilizations. One full cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations is about 24,000 years. This, btw, is a very important concept in traditional astrology (sidereal astrology) where the starting point of the zodiac has to be constantly recalibrated, as opposed to modern astrology (tropical astrology) which uses the equinoxes as reference points.
Here's from Yukteswar:
So, basically this is about the consensus trance, the matrix and its up and down cycles. Also keep in mind that Yukteswar wrote this in the 1890s, so he wrote it from that perspective.
Now, I've' written recently about health and electricity already. So we are certainly moving in the direction Yukteswar indicated. It's just that science, with its basic tenets, is extremely slow to catch up.
Also, the beauty of the cyclical model is that it can explain things like the pyramids or the Baghdad battery. The linear model of history cannot explain this. So there are a lot of alternative perspectives on man, civilization and history that are all readily available to those with an open mind. Common consensus trance mind is likely going to reject this as preposterous and unscientific or pseudo-science, of course. And by doing so, they close the door to alternative solutions to health and general well-being. But as BK and I keep saying: suffering is a choice. To each their own. As Yukteswar indicated, the blessings that become normal in the golden age and are seen as supernatural in the dark age are actually always available to each individual, right here right now. But one has to break away from the consensus trance to realize that. And that's not easy. Just think of Tesla or Schauberger.
Astrology gets a bad rap, and I think rightly so. That said, there's no doubt that there was knowledge that had been learned from observing the constellations and the planets and distinguishing between the two that was lost. Some of it was quite practical. As an example, the Roman calendar was all bollixed up, so that it had to be summarily reset at various points. Otherwise various key dates would be off by several months because of drift. But the people the Romans called barbarians had (literally) hammered-out the detailed cycles of the moon onto gold conical hats (centuries prior to the founding of Rome), and that wasn't discovered until relative recently. Might seem like trivia, but here you had the rulers of the land who couldn't keep track of what day it was, and predicting these cycles was a necessary function for people living agrarian and pre-agrarian lifestyles. Notice the shape and styles of the hats? Interesting link to Astrology (the occult, generally). So the sciences that find things like the golden hats can be divided into two facets: (1) the practical, doing-side of the people out in the fields and in the labs: the empiricists, and then (2) the theorists who tie the results all together into a coherent narrative. The entire purpose of the narratives is to serve as a benchmark for challenge, but, of course, that has become completely corrupted to the point where counter-narrative empirical results are not only summarily dismissed but actively suppressed. Interesting that Yuga calls out this date, 11,500 years ago. Are you familiar with Graham Hancock? What I'm reminded of is the current models of the Earth's past climate, the projections into the deep past on scales of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago. Even if we've lost significant past knowledge - and there is ample evidence that we have - if there is even a shred of validity in the models of past climate then the last 10,000 years have been quite exceptional both in stability and optimal temperature for population growth. Conversely, it's a tautology that we don't know what we don't know, and regardless of how impressive some of our technological achievements might be, there are entire dimensions (in an abstract, not a concrete) sense that a correction or expansion of the premises underlying our knowledge could yield. Comparing lasers and transistors to railways and steam engines, for example. Simple commonsense calls into question the current narrative that human beings lived primitive, unsophisticated lives for a period of 50k to 100k years after they had evolved away from the predecessor populations. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2024 2:03:39 GMT -5
Then Rose basically disqualified himself from knowing the absolute truth. Saying that doubt is sacred is like saying the intellect is sacred.
You see, what you are suggesting is the rational approach. And that is good advice as long as we are talking about relative truths and relative knowing. In that sense, I agree.
But as soon as we are talking about absolute knowing, as is the case with SR, the rational approach fails. Because the rational approach limits you to what the intellect can grasp, i.e. 'thingness'. You will never get to 'suchness' with the rational approach, via the the intellect. Because 'suchness' is prior to 'thingness', prior to the intellect, prior to rational arguments.
Imagine Niz or RM saying: "Question everything I say and look at everything I say from different angles. Doubt is sacred!" They don't say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite: "Trust the guru, have unwavering faith in the words of the guru! Don't doubt!" Or imagine Niz or RM saying: "It seems to me that I AM THAT and that the SELF is all there is. But what do I know?!" They don't say that. They make absolute statements of absolute facts: "There is only the Self. I am That."
So you see, there's some deep contextual confusion in your and Rose's perspective. In fact, what you suggest is the exact same combination of ignorance and arrogance that Laughter mentioned in his post about the medical community which prevents further insights and realizations about the nature of reality.
That's the folly of the rational approach and skepticism, they question everything, except the rational approach and skepticism. And so it's just another dogma, another belief system. And as any other belief system, it's just another donkey tethering post, as they say in Zen. Don't be a donkey, Robert!
Don't question everything. Instead, pay attention to your inner guidance and go beyond the rational mind. To know yourself, you have to be yourself, not question everything. To realize God you have to be God. Only the Infinite as the Infinite can realize the Infinite via the eyes of the Infinite. Which means, neither self/SVP nor intellect play any role in SR. They all have to be left behind. The intellect is a tool for relative knowledge. Don't make it your master. The intellect cannot grasp absolute knowledge. And only absolute knowledge of who you are can give you peace of mind. And so the intellect and the rational approach cannot give you peace of mind. Which means the intellect, the rational mind, is not the right tool. It's just going to make you smug and keep you forever discontent. As Zhuangzi used to say, there is no end to relative knowledge and therefore to end to questioning relative knowledge. In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.
This is off the mark on too many things, so I lose energy to tangle with it. I agree some with your points about limits of intellect, but I know that already. You're wrong about where I'm at, or what I meant by doubt, or what Mr. Rose meant by doubt. It's too tiresome to have to explain who I am, to someone who wants to pretend I'm something else. Ramana and Nisargadatta did say things about trust vs verify, surrender vs self-inquiry, and the not-knowing. But I'm not going to explain it. These theories you were filling pages with - those are intellectual theories by my view. They may not be scientific theories, but it's still a bunch of ideas you think you "know". So to turn that around and tell me how I shouldn't be attached to intellect. ... ?? About this attempt to dox me, or whatever it it is. "Robert is a donkey." I'm not getting the appeal. But it brings up this topic of anonymity on forums like this, which I've been questioning and discussing with some friends. In some countries, there's been talk of forcing people to use their real identities on social media. It seems like it might help things. There are some people on this site, or connected to it, who have put themselves forward as teachers or guides in some way. They are not anonymous. We can see their names, faces, biographies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be anonymous. I think if you really want to teach these ideas about abundance/alignment, etc., you have to do it by example. Less talk, more demonstration. I would be genuinely psyched to see a guy (or gal) living a healthy looking life, radiating goo₫ vibes, and saying: here's how I did it, try X, Y, Z. But an anonymous internet account, just talking and saying oh that guy had a problem he must not know about my theories ... I don't think it's going to convince many people. Nah, what does an anon want from you other than that you read their content? That's not to say that all anons are absent agenda. Clearly, that's not the case. And some anon's can even build up a following and benefit from it. You have to be able to distinguish between the two circumstances. And, of course, there are a few people who are free with their identities that also want nothing from you. But these are very few and far between, and also, there can even be a matter of degree involved with anonymity. Using your first name is hardly doxxing you, and it seems to me that the agenda in discussing the topic in this case, is yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2024 2:25:37 GMT -5
Scientism is very strong in Western culture. Even on a spiritual forum like this one, which surprises me every time.
SDP mentioned Kali Yuga, he thinks we are in Kali Yuga. I don't think so. Kali Yuga is not a technological age. We are certainly in Dwapara Yuga already, which is the technological age. The Yuga theory is linked to astronomy, it's the cyclical view of history and the rise and fall of civilizations. One full cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations is about 24,000 years. This, btw, is a very important concept in traditional astrology (sidereal astrology) where the starting point of the zodiac has to be constantly recalibrated, as opposed to modern astrology (tropical astrology) which uses the equinoxes as reference points.
Here's from Yukteswar:
So, basically this is about the consensus trance, the matrix and its up and down cycles. Also keep in mind that Yukteswar wrote this in the 1890s, so he wrote it from that perspective.
Now, I've' written recently about health and electricity already. So we are certainly moving in the direction Yukteswar indicated. It's just that science, with its basic tenets, is extremely slow to catch up.
Also, the beauty of the cyclical model is that it can explain things like the pyramids or the Baghdad battery. The linear model of history cannot explain this. So there are a lot of alternative perspectives on man, civilization and history that are all readily available to those with an open mind. Common consensus trance mind is likely going to reject this as preposterous and unscientific or pseudo-science, of course. And by doing so, they close the door to alternative solutions to health and general well-being. But as BK and I keep saying: suffering is a choice. To each their own. As Yukteswar indicated, the blessings that become normal in the golden age and are seen as supernatural in the dark age are actually always available to each individual, right here right now. But one has to break away from the consensus trance to realize that. And that's not easy. Just think of Tesla or Schauberger.
Astrology gets a bad rap, and I think rightly so. That said, there's no doubt that there was knowledge that had been learned from observing the constellations and the planets and distinguishing between the two that was lost. Some of it was quite practical. As an example, the Roman calendar was all bollixed up, so that it had to be summarily reset at various points. Otherwise various key dates would be off by several months because of drift. But the people the Romans called barbarians had (literally) hammered-out the detailed cycles of the moon onto gold conical hats (centuries prior to the founding of Rome), and that wasn't discovered until relative recently. Might seem like trivia, but here you had the rulers of the land who couldn't keep track of what day it was, and predicting these cycles was a necessary function for people living agrarian and pre-agrarian lifestyles. Notice the shape and styles of the hats? Interesting link to Astrology (the occult, generally). So the sciences that find things like the golden hats can be divided into two facets: (1) the practical, doing-side of the people out in the fields and in the labs: the empiricists, and then (2) the theorists who tie the results all together into a coherent narrative. The entire purpose of the narratives is to serve as a benchmark for challenge, but, of course, that has become completely corrupted to the point where counter-narrative empirical results are not only summarily dismissed but actively suppressed. Interesting that Yuga calls out this date, 11,500 years ago. Are you familiar with Graham Hancock? What I'm reminded of is the current models of the Earth's past climate, the projections into the deep past on scales of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago. Even if we've lost significant past knowledge - and there is ample evidence that we have - if there is even a shred of validity in the models of past climate then the last 10,000 years have been quite exceptional both in stability and optimal temperature for population growth. Conversely, it's a tautology that we don't know what we don't know, and regardless of how impressive some of our technological achievements might be, there are entire dimensions (in an abstract, not a concrete) sense that a correction or expansion of the premises underlying our knowledge could yield. Comparing lasers and transistors to railways and steam engines, for example. Simple commonsense calls into question the current narrative that human beings lived primitive, unsophisticated lives for a period of 50k to 100k years after they had evolved away from the predecessor populations. Having studied different traditions of astrology in depth for many years, I have to say that astrology, at it's core, is legit. There's a reason why they called astrology the mother of all sciences. The cosmos, creation has a certain order. And in the old days, astrology and astronomy were one and the same. And astronomy was one of the classical liberal arts. Astronomers, like Galileo or Kepler also always were astrologers. So in that sense, the age of enlightenment was more the opposite of enlightenment, a lot of ancient knowledge got either lost or devalued at that time. We are still seeing the effects of that today. So, astrology is an ancient science. A lot of psychology for example is drawing from astrological concepts, mythology too, down to modern Hollywood movie scripts. It's very holistic. And there are many practical applications, not just psychology. The way astrology is practiced though, gives it a bad rap. There's a lot of malpractice, unfortunately.
I've heard the name before, not really my interest, but I just looked him up on Wikipedia: IOW, nothing to see here. The Abe book I mentioned, interestingly also mentions these regular cataclysm and a cycle of roughly 26,000 years. Here's a quote from the book: So that number would be in the ballpark of the Great Year. What they are talking about is a pole shift, which will cause extreme volcanic activity, plus earth quakes and floods all around the planet. So there are some interesting data points from different sources in both science, mythology and religion which you could connect and shape into a greater, more coherent theory. But with a life span of 100 years maximum trying to analyze a cycle of 26,000 years is like the summer insect trying to imagine what winter is. That's why I don't go all that deep into such theories. It's interesting, maybe even enlightening, but what's the practical application for my here and now experience? I can't really see one.
ETA: An interesting note on the calendar problem, they had that in India too. They created a calendar commission in the 1950s to realign all calendars. Unfortunately, the knowledge of the exact cosmic reference point had been lost. So they came up with a compromise, a mere ballpark figure. Which, for calendar purposes, is fine. But for astrological purposes, where you have to do complicated, precise mathematical calculations, it gives incorrect results at times. It's a hotly debated topic among astrologers, almost as hot as our realization status debates, hehe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2024 2:45:11 GMT -5
This is off the mark on too many things, so I lose energy to tangle with it. I agree some with your points about limits of intellect, but I know that already. You're wrong about where I'm at, or what I meant by doubt, or what Mr. Rose meant by doubt. It's too tiresome to have to explain who I am, to someone who wants to pretend I'm something else. Ramana and Nisargadatta did say things about trust vs verify, surrender vs self-inquiry, and the not-knowing. But I'm not going to explain it. These theories you were filling pages with - those are intellectual theories by my view. They may not be scientific theories, but it's still a bunch of ideas you think you "know". So to turn that around and tell me how I shouldn't be attached to intellect. ... ?? About this attempt to dox me, or whatever it it is. "Robert is a donkey." I'm not getting the appeal. But it brings up this topic of anonymity on forums like this, which I've been questioning and discussing with some friends. In some countries, there's been talk of forcing people to use their real identities on social media. It seems like it might help things. There are some people on this site, or connected to it, who have put themselves forward as teachers or guides in some way. They are not anonymous. We can see their names, faces, biographies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be anonymous. I think if you really want to teach these ideas about abundance/alignment, etc., you have to do it by example. Less talk, more demonstration. I would be genuinely psyched to see a guy (or gal) living a healthy looking life, radiating goo₫ vibes, and saying: here's how I did it, try X, Y, Z. But an anonymous internet account, just talking and saying oh that guy had a problem he must not know about my theories ... I don't think it's going to convince many people. Nah, what does an anon want from you other than that you read their content? That's not to say that all anons are absent agenda. Clearly, that's not the case. And some anon's can even build up a following and benefit from it. You have to be able to distinguish between the two circumstances. And, of course, there are a few people who are free with their identities that also want nothing from you. But these are very few and far between, and also, there can even be a matter of degree involved with anonymity. Using your first name is hardly doxxing you, and it seems to me that the agenda in discussing the topic in this case, is yours. You don't think it's a substantive point to say that if you're going to criticize people who get sick, and preach grandiose ideas about how you don't get sick, that it would be better to talk less and instead demonstrate and show your life as an example, instead of hiding behind anonymity? That's "ad hominem"? Sister please. I thought using the name "Robert" was an attempt to force the issue or dehumanize me. I was warned about the moderator beforehand. I knew what I was getting into. The gaslighting and lies about how I'm not making substantive points - it's like a retarded jedi mind trick, so I'm not super impressed, but the pervasive bully language was interesting. There's not enough people here though. My support has ended their mission, and I'm going to follow. It's been interesting, seriously. So thanks for that. And thanks for the fish. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 10, 2024 7:14:20 GMT -5
As Richard Rose said: "doubt is sacred". If anyone pushes a "know-it-all" belief system, there is going to be push-back. It's not personal. Questioning things from different angles, and admitting that YOU DONT KNOW is much more valuable, unless your goal is to sell books or pablum to the masses. Then Rose basically disqualified himself from knowing the absolute truth. Saying that doubt is sacred is like saying the intellect is sacred.
You see, what you are suggesting is the rational approach. And that is good advice as long as we are talking about relative truths and relative knowing. In that sense, I agree.
But as soon as we are talking about absolute knowing, as is the case with SR, the rational approach fails. Because the rational approach limits you to what the intellect can grasp, i.e. 'thingness'. You will never get to 'suchness' with the rational approach, via the the intellect. Because 'suchness' is prior to 'thingness', prior to the intellect, prior to rational arguments.
Imagine Niz or RM saying: "Question everything I say and look at everything I say from different angles. Doubt is sacred!" They don't say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite: "Trust the guru, have unwavering faith in the words of the guru! Don't doubt!" Or imagine Niz or RM saying: "It seems to me that I AM THAT and that the SELF is all there is. But what do I know?!" They don't say that. They make absolute statements of absolute facts: "There is only the Self. I am That."
So you see, there's some deep contextual confusion in your and Rose's perspective. In fact, what you suggest is the exact same combination of ignorance and arrogance that Laughter mentioned in his post about the medical community which prevents further insights and realizations about the nature of reality.
That's the folly of the rational approach and skepticism, they question everything, except the rational approach and skepticism. And so it's just another dogma, another belief system. And as any other belief system, it's just another donkey tethering post, as they say in Zen. Don't be a donkey, Robert!
Don't question everything. Instead, pay attention to your inner guidance and go beyond the rational mind. To know yourself, you have to be yourself, not question everything. To realize God you have to be God. Only the Infinite as the Infinite can realize the Infinite via the eyes of the Infinite. Which means, neither self/SVP nor intellect play any role in SR. They all have to be left behind. The intellect is a tool for relative knowledge. Don't make it your master. The intellect cannot grasp absolute knowledge. And only absolute knowledge of who you are can give you peace of mind. And so the intellect and the rational approach cannot give you peace of mind. Which means the intellect, the rational mind, is not the right tool. It's just going to make you smug and keep you forever discontent. As Zhuangzi used to say, there is no end to relative knowledge and therefore to end to questioning relative knowledge. In short, you are barking up the wrong tree.
On first read, just a couple of minutes ago, I don't get this at all. It seems a purpose of doubt is to negate the intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 10, 2024 7:27:06 GMT -5
Just for the record, I more asked a question than made a statement. You are trying too hard to prove your point. And I think it's time you give it a rest. It has become an obsession. And it is not doing your or the forum any good. Do you remember Arisha? You remind me of her.
You also seem to be unable to distinguish between fact (what's actually been written and what is in the archives) and fiction (your favorite pet theory in your own mind). You've become an expert giraffe herder.
Now, let me address some of your giraffes:
First, I regularly recommend books and teachings of other spiritual teachers.
Secondly, I've specifically made it clear that RM's or Niz' shortcomings in the physical human context do not devalue their realization status at all. Thirdly, there are no levels of SR. And SR or what is seen or realized in the event of SR is, has been and always will be the exact same realization for everyone, no matter what epoch, culture, or personal history or personal life circumstances.
Fourthly, you have made it abundantly clear that you have no reference for CC, SR or what non-duality is pointing to. So most of what you say about other people's realization status (or lack thereof) is therefore speculation, and most of the time actually mere projection. Fifthly, can you tell me who RM's or Niz or RK's or Bodhidharma's go-to guy was?
Sixthly, I sense a strong dose of what Nietzsche called "Moralin" in everything you write. He actually called moralism a form of cowardice. Maybe something to contemplate for you.
. Niz recorded the talks and edited the book. This, I didn't say you didn't. I asked if you could recommend someone without qualification, that covered everything. This, I made it abundantly clear, by saying so, SR is not in my vocabulary. To bring up murder, rape, terrorism, war, is not moralizing. Morality depends upon culture, society, tribes, it's always subjective. Yes, I agree, it all just happens, it all happens within the Whole. There is the flow away from Source called involution. This is the outbreathing of Brahman. There is the flow which is the return to Source, this is evolution, this is the inbreathing of Brahman. It's common knowledge there are these two flows. I'm not the most familiar with the Yugas, but aren't we in a Yuga of degradation? The Kali Yuga? Symptoms of Kali Yuga There are many symptoms of Kali Yuga given in the Srimad Bhagavatam and other Vedic texts. What follows is a compilation of some of the prominent symptoms of the age: Genuine religion will disappear day by day. People will be unclean, untruthful, merciless, short-lived, and of weak memory. Wealth alone will be the indicator of a person’s social status. Those with power and influence will escape justice and flout the law. In place of marriage, men and women will live together simply due to romantic attraction The worth of a man or woman will be judged according to their expertise in sex. Success in business will depend on deceit. Those who do not have money will be considered substandard human beings. Hypocrisy will be accepted as a virtue. Beauty will be judged simply by one’s hairstyle. People will think that eating well is the highest goal of life. People will practice religion simply to achieve fame. There will be widespread famine and excess taxes, and people will be forced to flee to forests and mountains. The maximum duration of life will be 50 years. By the end of Kali Yuga, human beings will be of a reduced size, the Vedas will be completely forgotten, and the leaders of society will be thieves. People will have no other professions than simply cheating, killing, and stealing from one another. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm just sharing my view... |
|
