|
Post by shadowplay on Oct 11, 2020 5:11:21 GMT -5
But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. SDP, for what it’s worth here’s my take on it which allows for the variations that you mention. There is something rather than nothing. Beyond belief… beyond ideas… theories and projections… here it is. When we were tiny there was no conceptual separation from the happening of the body-mind and this primary principle. Separation (from this principle) comes later - it’s a kind of collective delusion which is upheld in the reflective mind. And so you don’t exist… as such, you never did (bear with me.) What exists is the primordial ‘happening’. It’s obvious really - nothing particularly spooky about it. You existing is a kind of category error.To use a worn out analogy, think of this primordial principle as an ocean… all there is is an ocean of existence. You (the body-mind) are a fleeting wave which has no existence other than the movement of the ocean. So yes, there is this phenomenal arising/expression which we call you or me (that’s how I’m able to address you.) This is not denied (Buddhists call this the conventional self.) But it is not a separate, independent or inherently existing entity - such a thing doesn’t exist. Now, there are two broad variations (and there can be some crossover) of how this sensibility is reported in non duality circles: 1. The end of identification with form - including the body-mind and its conditioning. Life goes on, events simply happen with no sense of a separate actor. 2. It’s acknowledged that identification does occur - but it is seen for what it is, simply a spontaneous play of Source - and in that, identification is re-contextualized. The first sense is complete identification with the ocean/Self as doer, actor, author. The second sensibility acknowledges that wave identification does occur - with the knowing that this too is simply the expression of the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2020 5:45:36 GMT -5
I assume you meant liberation. Or maybe not. www.google.com/search?q=libation+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS894US894&oq=libation&aqs=chrome.3.0i433i457j69i57j0i433j0i131i433j46i175i199j0l2j46.12794j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8OK, let me get this right. There is something that searches, seeks, explores, wants Truth. The search is on, until there is a realization, that there is no searcher? But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. You see, right here, is the distinction between essence and ego/personality/cultural self. But you and zd have a different view of what essence is, from sdp. I have no problem with stopping here. This is as far as words can go. So we can probe and explore just a little, more. Or not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you consider it outside the realm of possibility, that the same ~"essence"~-Dalai Lama has re-incarnated 14 times? (The same politician-Dalai Lama has existed, only just this one time. The politician-fun-loving-irresistible-fuzzy~warm-grinning-black glasses-Dalai Lama, has lived only this once). Ha! Liberation, of course. Yes, my perspective my differ slightly. It's probably due to how I use the word 'exist'. To me, both self and Self exist, but only Self is real, self is false. Realizing that is what SR is all about. If you want to get a bit more metaphorically, I really like how AW put it here: "The universe is the game of the Self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever. When it plays ‘hide,’ it plays it so well, hides so cleverly, that it pretends to be all of us, and all things whatsoever. And we don’t know it because it’s playing ‘hide.’ But when it plays ‘seek,’ it enters onto a path of yoga, and—through following this path—it wakes up, and the scales fall from one’s eyes." I actually made the point once that in order to function properly in society, a self (to some degree) is required. In the past we used the mirage analogy. Realizing that the oasis that you are seeing in the far distance isn't a real oasis but only a mirage doesn't make the mirage go away. But the realization puts an end to the desire to ride out there and fill your canteen with fresh water. Same with Self and self. I have no issue with the reincarnation theory if we think of it in terms of a stream of consciousness and as long as it is clear what exactly is coming and going. But what I do have an issue with is the idea that we are here to prove our worthiness and that the purpose of life is to move on to higher, more exalted realms (be that the astral sphere or parabrahman). I think this is my major disagreement with Inavalan and also Ouroboros (if I understood him correctly). From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2020 5:48:09 GMT -5
But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. SDP, for what it’s worth here’s my take on it which allows for the variations that you mention. There is something rather than nothing. Beyond belief… beyond ideas… theories and projections… here it is. When we were tiny there was no conceptual separation from the happening of the body-mind and this primary principle. Separation (from this principle) comes later - it’s a kind of collective delusion which is upheld in the reflective mind. And so you don’t exist… as such, you never did (bear with me.) What exists is the primordial ‘happening’. It’s obvious really - nothing particularly spooky about it. You existing is a kind of category error.To use a worn out analogy, think of this primordial principle as an ocean… all there is is an ocean of existence. You (the body-mind) are a fleeting wave which has no existence other than the movement of the ocean. So yes, there is this phenomenal arising/expression which we call you or me (that’s how I’m able to address you.) This is not denied (Buddhists call this the conventional self.) But it is not a separate, independent or inherently existing entity - such a thing doesn’t exist. Now, there are two broad variations (and there can be some crossover) of how this sensibility is reported in non duality circles: 1. The end of identification with form - including the body-mind and its conditioning. Life goes on, events simply happen with no sense of a separate actor. 2. It’s acknowledged that identification does occur - but it is seen for what it is, simply a spontaneous play of Source - and in that, identification is re-contextualized. The first sense is complete identification with the ocean/Self as doer, actor, author. The second sensibility acknowledges that wave identification does occur - with the knowing that this too is simply the expression of the ocean. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 8:27:09 GMT -5
I assume you meant liberation. Or maybe not. www.google.com/search?q=libation+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS894US894&oq=libation&aqs=chrome.3.0i433i457j69i57j0i433j0i131i433j46i175i199j0l2j46.12794j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8OK, let me get this right. There is something that searches, seeks, explores, wants Truth. The search is on, until there is a realization, that there is no searcher? But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. You see, right here, is the distinction between essence and ego/personality/cultural self. But you and zd have a different view of what essence is, from sdp. I have no problem with stopping here. This is as far as words can go. So we can probe and explore just a little, more. Or not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you consider it outside the realm of possibility, that the same ~"essence"~-Dalai Lama has re-incarnated 14 times? (The same politician-Dalai Lama has existed, only just this one time. The politician-fun-loving-irresistible-fuzzy~warm-grinning-black glasses-Dalai Lama, has lived only this once). Ha! Liberation, of course. Yes, my perspective my differ slightly. It's probably due to how I use the word 'exist'. To me, both self and Self exist, but only Self is real, self is false. Realizing that is what SR is all about. If you want to get a bit more metaphorically, I really like how AW put it here: "The universe is the game of the Self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever. When it plays ‘hide,’ it plays it so well, hides so cleverly, that it pretends to be all of us, and all things whatsoever. And we don’t know it because it’s playing ‘hide.’ But when it plays ‘seek,’ it enters onto a path of yoga, and—through following this path—it wakes up, and the scales fall from one’s eyes." I actually made the point once that in order to function properly in society, a self (to some degree) is required. In the past we used the mirage analogy. Realizing that the oasis that you are seeing in the far distance isn't a real oasis but only a mirage doesn't make the mirage go away. But the realization puts an end to the desire to ride out there and fill your canteen with fresh water. Same with Self and self. I have no issue with the reincarnation theory if we think of it in terms of a stream of consciousness and as long as it is clear what exactly is coming and going. But what I do have an issue with is the idea that we are here to prove our worthiness and that the purpose of life is to move on to higher, more exalted realms (be that the astral sphere or parabrahman). I think this is my major disagreement with Inavalan and also Ouroboros (if I understood him correctly). It's good to hear this. This seems to be a kind of middle ground. I consider it significant (that you understand this). I agree. I've known that theoretically for at least 44 years, really 50 years. Not-theoretically somewhere between then and now. And so this is always a sticking point between zd and sdp. His expressed view is that small s self is completely illusory, doesn't even exist, has never existed. We (sdp and zd don't discuss the issue, he just states his view, I state my view). I've stated for eleven years here, small s self is a false sense of self. Mostly all I get back is, no, that's incorrect, self is "contained within" Self or some such, or self is illusory, it doesn't exist al all. So I agree, we need in some sense a self (small s self, ego) to function in life. Maybe an analogy. If I were to go to another planet, acquire their body-exterior, at least the appearance-of enough to fool the inhabitants thereof, yet remember I'm from earth and know who-I-am, and likewise match, at least outwardly, their psychological characteristics, yet know such is merely an act, all that is somewhat the meaning of small s self, and its practical function. However, most people forget that they are in actuality not the false sense of self, they think they are the small s self. So I don't consider this a small issue. And I consider small s self has never existed, even more troublesome. But I'm not trying to drive a wedge between anybody. Just to be clear, the small s self doesn't "reincarnate". The small s self has no future, is a dead end. Essence is like the prodigal son, is welcomed back because that's where he came from.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 8:42:10 GMT -5
Ha! Liberation, of course. Yes, my perspective my differ slightly. It's probably due to how I use the word 'exist'. To me, both self and Self exist, but only Self is real, self is false. Realizing that is what SR is all about. If you want to get a bit more metaphorically, I really like how AW put it here: "The universe is the game of the Self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever. When it plays ‘hide,’ it plays it so well, hides so cleverly, that it pretends to be all of us, and all things whatsoever. And we don’t know it because it’s playing ‘hide.’ But when it plays ‘seek,’ it enters onto a path of yoga, and—through following this path—it wakes up, and the scales fall from one’s eyes." I actually made the point once that in order to function properly in society, a self (to some degree) is required. In the past we used the mirage analogy. Realizing that the oasis that you are seeing in the far distance isn't a real oasis but only a mirage doesn't make the mirage go away. But the realization puts an end to the desire to ride out there and fill your canteen with fresh water. Same with Self and self. I have no issue with the reincarnation theory if we think of it in terms of a stream of consciousness and as long as it is clear what exactly is coming and going. But what I do have an issue with is the idea that we are here to prove our worthiness and that the purpose of life is to move on to higher, more exalted realms (be that the astral sphere or parabrahman). I think this is my major disagreement with Inavalan and also Ouroboros (if I understood him correctly). From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen? But (and this is probably superfluous, because I've gone into it before with you), this denies how one's ability to function in the world occurred in the first place. I've mentioned feral children before. If you merely gave a baby food, shelter and clothing, but no exposure to language and culture, they would not be able to function in life. IOW, upon growing up they could not function in the manner zd describes. IOW, to be able to live as zd describes, one has to have once upon a time acquired the skills to be able to function without thinking. I don't know how this could be more clear. The body could not "continue to function intelligently in the absence of imagination", if it never learned to do so in the first place, and this is the necessary purpose of acquiring a ~persona~, IOW growing up as an ordinary child, acquiring language and skills. Has to have once upon a time acquired language and skills, means that acquiring was not illusory, it happened.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 8:55:46 GMT -5
But something still remains. Reefs and zd still move and act in the world, think (when necessary), feels. Are you saying that that something that still remains, is merely like a shadow? That this something that remains, that to others still seems to be Reefs (or zd) acting in the world, is merely an insubstantial shadow, or mirror reflection? If you didn't talk about it to others, they wouldn't know there is actually no Reefs present, no zd present, that the Whole is masking as Reefs or zd. I of course have been through this over a dozen times with zd (that's why including his name here). He never breaks character (in a manner of speaking). But I think you have a little different view (but maybe not to any significant extent). So yes, I am still interested. I obviously have a different view, that, ultimately, the universe, is up to something else. I always put it this way with zd, You are accurate up to this point, I have no problem with any of this, it actually fits quite well in my "paradigm". However, there is something ~on the other side of up to this point~. And then, our conversation (sdp and zd) always ends there. SDP, for what it’s worth here’s my take on it which allows for the variations that you mention. There is something rather than nothing. Beyond belief… beyond ideas… theories and projections… here it is. When we were tiny there was no conceptual separation from the happening of the body-mind and this primary principle. Separation (from this principle) comes later - it’s a kind of collective delusion which is upheld in the reflective mind. And so you don’t exist… as such, you never did (bear with me.) What exists is the primordial ‘happening’. It’s obvious really - nothing particularly spooky about it. You existing is a kind of category error.To use a worn out analogy, think of this primordial principle as an ocean… all there is is an ocean of existence. You (the body-mind) are a fleeting wave which has no existence other than the movement of the ocean. So yes, there is this phenomenal arising/expression which we call you or me (that’s how I’m able to address you.) This is not denied (Buddhists call this the conventional self.) But it is not a separate, independent or inherently existing entity - such a thing doesn’t exist. Now, there are two broad variations (and there can be some crossover) of how this sensibility is reported in non duality circles: 1. The end of identification with form - including the body-mind and its conditioning. Life goes on, events simply happen with no sense of a separate actor. 2. It’s acknowledged that identification does occur - but it is seen for what it is, simply a spontaneous play of Source - and in that, identification is re-contextualized. The first sense is complete identification with the ocean/Self as doer, actor, author. The second sensibility acknowledges that wave identification does occur - with the knowing that this too is simply the expression of the ocean. 1, zd. 2, Reefs. I have no problem with any of you post (except 1 without explanation). But my view requires a possibility of individuation, something that is not guaranteed, something that not-now-is, something that isn't, until it is (which requires a transitional period, meaning, time and space are ~real~ within the context of our universe of experience). I agree, nothing occurs outside All That Is/Wholeness. (Always have).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 11, 2020 9:08:18 GMT -5
And that is also just a belief, right? No. There is nothing you have access to that isn't a belief. every perception results in a belief. I'm sorry, this just isn't true. Probably at least half the people here know in an absolute in your bones way this isn't true, could be 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of people here. Not really any reason to discuss it further. You can explore, and shift, or not. Your choice. But I'm sure you're quite OK, with, you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2020 9:36:11 GMT -5
From my POV existence arises with distinction (with thinking), and in this sense self is not necessary for functionality. A way to investigate what's being pointed to is to stop thinking, and find out if the body continues to function intelligently in the total absence of imagination. What happens when all internal commentary and all ideas cease? What is seen? But (and this is probably superfluous, because I've gone into it before with you), this denies how one's ability to function in the world occurred in the first place. I've mentioned feral children before. If you merely gave a baby food shelter and clothing, but no exposure to language and culture, they would not be able to function in life. IOW, upon growing up they could not function in the manner zd describes. IOW, to be able to live as zd describes, one has to have once upon a time acquired the skills to be able to function without thinking. I don't know how this could be more clear. The body could not "continue to function intelligently in the absence of imagination", if it never learned to do so in the first place, and this is the necessary purpose of acquiring a ~persona~, IOW growing up as an ordinary child, acquiring language and skills. I don't disagree with this. Given that humans are raised in an environment where abstract distinctions are not recognized as imaginary, all humans acquire cultural indoctrination and assume the same assumptions as the adults who unconsciously indoctrinate them. As adults, all seekers start the journey toward discovering "what's going on" under the illusion that they are separate volitional entities "in here" interacting with an exterior world "out there." That is simply the human condition in its current state of evolution. The intelligence of what humans are is vast beyond comprehension, and children learn about the world directly as well as indirectly through abstraction and symbology. As a fun thought experiment, one might ponder what would happen if a child were raised by mute parents on a desert island who never used symbology to educate the child. The child would definitely learn a great deal from watching and interacting with its parents, but whether it would acquire some sort of an internal dialogue on its own or how it would use it's innate ability to imagine distinctions is unknowable. I suspect that such a child would learn about the world and become functional adults in the same way as various species of highly intelligent crows do, who, without abstract symbology, teach their offspring numerous survival mechanisms and efficient ways of doing things to sustain life. The crow or child would learn in the same way that a child learns to ride a bicycle. Such a child would not become "feral" in the same way that the term is usually used. In any event this kind of conjecture doesn't address the main point that I typically make. Given that the symbology of the culture is internalized subconsciously in all functional adults, the question is, "What happens if the thinking mind becomes silent?" This is not a simple thing to investigate because most adults have a monkey-mind internal dialogue that, in Tolle's words, involves "compulsively-incessant thought." Nevertheless, many people pursuing ND have attained a state of sustained internal silence. In many cases that state occurred suddenly and sometimes lasted for long periods of time. In most of the cases I've read about such a state of silence resulted in major realizations about the nature of reality. It happened to Gary Weber in the middle of a workday, and he claimed that he functioned more efficiently in silence than when his mind was talkative. Norio Kushi fell into silence after curiously watching the spaces between thoughts. His mind remained silent for two weeks, after which he attained what most of the forum calls "SR." Terry Stephens fell into that state for three months, after which a "download phenomena" occurred that resulted in his awakening. Paul Morgan-Somers claims that every time his mind went silent between the ages of about 16 and 20 all kinds of non-local phenomena and realizations occurred. I'm guessing that it would take at least one year of regularly shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception before most people could be aware of internal silence or what is seen without the mind commenting upon the silence and sights or thinking about the silence and sights. After a year, it would become easier and easier to remain silently aware, and the silent awareness would almost surely result in numerous insights into the nature, functionality, and intelligence of what we are. All that one can do is point in that general direction, and let those who are interested in the associated truth claims pursue them. Today, I have a much greater appreciation of Ramana's silence, and what lay behind it, than in the past, and there is no doubt in my mind that silence was his deepest teaching.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 11, 2020 9:38:44 GMT -5
No. There is nothing you have access to that isn't a belief. every perception results in a belief. I'm sorry, this just isn't true. Probably at least half the people here know in an absolute in your bones way this isn't true, could be 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of people here. Not really any reason to discuss it further. You can explore, and shift, or not. Your choice. But I'm sure you're quite OK, with, you. Agreed. Definitely not true. Little children and sages both perceive without having beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 11:54:29 GMT -5
No. There is nothing you have access to that isn't a belief. every perception results in a belief. I'm sorry, this just isn't true. Probably at least half the people here know in an absolute in your bones way this isn't true, could be 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of people here. Not really any reason to discuss it further. You can explore, and shift, or not. Your choice. But I'm sure you're quite OK, with, you. Sure, look at all those who "know" there's a god, in all those variations. This, here, is the same thing, clothed differently. I agree, there is nothing to discuss. Faith is faith.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 11, 2020 12:09:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, this just isn't true. Probably at least half the people here know in an absolute in your bones way this isn't true, could be 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of people here. Not really any reason to discuss it further. You can explore, and shift, or not. Your choice. But I'm sure you're quite OK, with, you. Agreed. Definitely not true. Little children and sages both perceive without having beliefs. You have this talent of making statements that seem profound, but they aren't (like sages, or little children do). Every thing has beliefs. You may believe that you found the truth. I don't believe I found it, don't believe it can be found, so I don't chase it. You stopped your quest. I didn't. We'll see. As the other poster said, I feel it ... surely, not "in my bones" as that infers something I believe to be a delusion .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2020 12:45:34 GMT -5
The play of gunas will continue as before, but YOU are not subject to that, only the body, the mind and the person is. But YOU are not the person and the body, not the mind and not the person. In that sense, yes, pretty much irrelevant. I would say Niz is somewhere in the middle. That's why both neos and trads both love to quote Niz. I see Ramana as more traditional leaning, but essentially very similar to Niz. They both belong to the 'Direct Path' group of teachers: I was reading in order, so I guess this somewhat answers my questions (above). However, I would suggest that even if both Advaita and neo-advaita are correct, neo-advaita is not the whole story. That the ~Path~ is not finished until all vasanas/samskaras are burnt out/exhausted/extinguished/blown out. IOW, if there are vasanas/samskaras remaining at death, "reincarnation" in some form, happens. (IOW, the energy of the 3 gunas, continues, until it doesn't). No, the cultural self that died, does not re-incarnate. So you, Reefs, consider neo-advaita more-correct. sdp considers traditional Advaita, more-correct. Understood completely, they are not contradictory. However, many free neo-advaitans might be surprised when they die, or, just say, surprises happen. And I would suggest that ~essence~-Dalai Lama, is free, liberated. He has chosen to come back again and again, for his people, his nation. And I would suggest that ~essence~-Dalai Lama is hinting, he's not coming back, he's done. In essence, what neo-advaita, traditional advaita and direct path advaita teach is the same. The quibbling is only about the method of teaching. I'm probably more inclined to direct path. The problem I see with the neos is that many seem lost in some kind of non-dual mind games, mesmerized by their own deadly logic, without even noticing it. Many trads, on the other hand, seem to be stuck in dogmatism and hung up on spiritual experiences. So direct path seems to me almost like the Buddha's middle way. But which branch of advaita one is eventually drawn to probably has more to do with personality types and what teachers are available when one becomes a seeker.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2020 13:01:18 GMT -5
So, it took a while for me to come back to this. And what I have learned from AW's lecture on Buddhist philosophy is that most disagreements with other related teachings is really just semantics. In a way, by taking a purely scholarly approach, you probably could fill books by outlining the differences, but at the same time, by taking a purely practical approach, that would just be indulging in semantics. Because ultimately, what the Buddha calls nirvana, what Ramana calls sahaja samadhi, what UG calls the natural state and what A-H call alignment is pointing to one and the thing (or no-thing), a kind of ultimate stateless state of being. SR means seeing from a context prior to birth and death. It is the realization that there is no birth and no death for YOU. That's why I asked, what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU? Notice that I didn't ask, "what does this have to do with you?" There is only what YOU are. So where could YOU possibly go and disappear to (or from)? So SR actually pulls the rug out from under such considerations, entirely. It's like, once you realize that you don't actually own a car, the question about what to do with it after it breaks down suddenly becomes redundant. Sure, you could continue to play around with different scenarios in your mind, just for the sake of mind play, but no matter how much you are engaged in that kind of mind play, it will always be crystal clear that there's no real substance to it, that you don't actually own a car, and therefore ultimately, what happens to that imaginary car after it breaks down - if you get a new one right away or if this will be your last car - is of no actual practical concern to you and has no actual practical consequences for you either. Interesting. I believe that the point that "there is no birth and no death for YOU" hence "what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU?" misses that there is a reason for which we are here. It is like saying that whatever you dream has nothing to do with the awake you, which I believe to be incorrect. The fact that many of us ignore the connection between our dreams and our awake selves, doesn't mean that there isn't a connection. Even more, ignorance of that connection is detrimental both to you and YOU. Also "ultimate stateless state of being" besides being an oxymoron, this is like if I don't understand beyond that point then there is nothing over there. I agree that we should recognize our intellectual and intuitive limitations, that we should be careful not to convert our beliefs and expectations into truths, that pushing beyond a limit is futile, but I disagree that if we can't know everything then what we can know is less valuable even unimportant (as the "nullifying bliss" seems to promote). There is formless okay; there is beyond our physical senses of course, but this should entice us to wish, and push to know beyond form, and beyond the physical senses. There is direct knowledge. But that's not what I'm saying. YOU exist prior to both the waking you and the dream you. Dream you and waking you belong to one and the same context. That's why comparing your dream experience to your waking experience will only help you learning more about you, but nothing about YOU.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2020 13:09:25 GMT -5
So, it took a while for me to come back to this. And what I have learned from AW's lecture on Buddhist philosophy is that most disagreements with other related teachings is really just semantics. In a way, by taking a purely scholarly approach, you probably could fill books by outlining the differences, but at the same time, by taking a purely practical approach, that would just be indulging in semantics. Because ultimately, what the Buddha calls nirvana, what Ramana calls sahaja samadhi, what UG calls the natural state and what A-H call alignment is pointing to one and the thing (or no-thing), a kind of ultimate stateless state of being. SR means seeing from a context prior to birth and death. It is the realization that there is no birth and no death for YOU. That's why I asked, what does this karma and reincarnation business have to do with YOU? Notice that I didn't ask, "what does this have to do with you?" There is only what YOU are. So where could YOU possibly go and disappear to (or from)? So SR actually pulls the rug out from under such considerations, entirely. It's like, once you realize that you don't actually own a car, the question about what to do with it after it breaks down suddenly becomes redundant. Sure, you could continue to play around with different scenarios in your mind, just for the sake of mind play, but no matter how much you are engaged in that kind of mind play, it will always be crystal clear that there's no real substance to it, that you don't actually own a car, and therefore ultimately, what happens to that imaginary car after it breaks down - if you get a new one right away or if this will be your last car - is of no actual practical concern to you and has no actual practical consequences for you either. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ?!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 11, 2020 13:11:32 GMT -5
And that is also just a belief, right? No. There is nothing you have access to that isn't a belief. every perception results in a belief. If it isn't a belief, then what is it? Asking for a friend.
|
|