Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 3, 2021 22:47:08 GMT -5
The title is a paraphrase from this video of Tulku Urgyen, probably the most circulated video of him online and in my opinion a decent summation of his teachings. However, this post is not really about him. I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. The 5-minute segment can be found here, and the longer dialogue can be found on youtube and Sam's website. Please watch this short segment to get everything that follows! Basically, this is a discussion about the difference between thinking about how lovely nonduality is, how beautiful the teaching is, and how lucky we are to have found it, and being the reality that we are in a primarily non-conceptual way. Sam's anecdote really hits this point well, in that it highlights a difference between Poonjaji and Tulku Urgyen: at least within this instance, Poonjaji is happy to give the intellectual understanding that there is no doer and nothing to accomplish and leave it at that, while Tulku Urgyen is quick to point out to this individual seeker that they still have a ways to go in terms of actually being free from the constantly shifting mind and it's conceptual ensnarement. Despite the obvious fact that the sense of authorship and selfhood is an illusion (I think many at least have glimpsed this and know it to be true), there is clearly a night-and-day difference between actually resting in/as non-conceptual being and simply being content with the conceptual framework of the teaching. Even though I say "being content", I don't think the mere intellectual understanding leads to contentment in any lasting sense, though if it did this would all be moot! Although I don't see any reason why thought needs to be kept at bay forever or concepts villainized, there seems to be an obvious difference between those who are primarily living through their senses bodies directly, and those primarily in their abstract, heady existence. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 4, 2021 0:48:06 GMT -5
These desire for, and contentment with being nothing, with experiencing nothing, with not-thinking, perplex me. I remain as speechless as when I hear some acquaintances speaking with absolute conviction about their direct experiences with God and Jesus. They know too (gnosis as some people here like to qualify) ... There must be some distortions of the original ancient teachings, and some self-suggestions involved in the experiences described by many seekers. This thread's title asks: " What's more fantastic than being totally free of thought?". Obvious answer: to properly use your intellectual capabilities in order to know more, to develop your self. This sounds more fantastic, and more likely. You asked for "thoughts" about "being totally free of thought" ...
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 4, 2021 1:09:30 GMT -5
Obvious answer: to properly use your intellectual capabilities in order to know more, to develop your self. This sounds more fantastic, and more likely. You asked for "thoughts" about "being totally free of thought" ... I suppose I'd have to disagree about this being "obvious" at the very least, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. For me all of my major insights, even if they are revealed through language like a prism reveals the color in light, come from that source of silence. It always seems to be that abidance as this without the medium of conceptual thinking that provides the answers. I feel that in contrast to this, "using my intellectual capabilities" to simply amass more facts about the world or go the self-improvement route feels shallow. This is, of course, just my opinion. As for this part, this is a forum which necessarily requires the use of language. It always puzzles me when people make this comment as it's seem clear to me that it's obviously more nuanced than that. If it weren't, the Dao de Jing would certainly be a hell of a lot shorter. All the world's literature and verbal communication relies on conceptuality yet that does not mean that discussion about the inevitable is useless or not worthwhile IMO.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 4, 2021 2:23:47 GMT -5
The title is a paraphrase from this video of Tulku Urgyen, probably the most circulated video of him online and in my opinion a decent summation of his teachings. However, this post is not really about him. I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. The 5-minute segment can be found here, and the longer dialogue can be found on youtube and Sam's website. Please watch this short segment to get everything that follows! Basically, this is a discussion about the difference between thinking about how lovely nonduality is, how beautiful the teaching is, and how lucky we are to have found it, and being the reality that we are in a primarily non-conceptual way. Sam's anecdote really hits this point well, in that it highlights a difference between Poonjaji and Tulku Urgyen: at least within this instance, Poonjaji is happy to give the intellectual understanding that there is no doer and nothing to accomplish and leave it at that, while Tulku Urgyen is quick to point out to this individual seeker that they still have a ways to go in terms of actually being free from the constantly shifting mind and it's conceptual ensnarement. Despite the obvious fact that the sense of authorship and selfhood is an illusion (I think many at least have glimpsed this and know it to be true), there is clearly a night-and-day difference between actually resting in/as non-conceptual being and simply being content with the conceptual framework of the teaching. Even though I say "being content", I don't think the mere intellectual understanding leads to contentment in any lasting sense, though if it did this would all be moot! Although I don't see any reason why thought needs to be kept at bay forever or concepts villainized, there seems to be an obvious difference between those who are primarily living through their senses bodies directly, and those primarily in their abstract, heady existence. Thoughts? One of my favorite quotes from Tolle: "The greatest attainment is freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought." Thinking is just a habit that's unnecessary 99% of the time, but the path of ND involves much more than the ability to stop thinking and remain conceptually quiescent, although conceptual quiescence generally results in a wide range of existential realizations--seeing though the illusion selfhood, seeing how thoughts usually keep one separated from the truth of what one IS, seeing that reality is not what is usually imagined, apprehending the Infinity of THIS directly, etc. I think it was Bunan who said, "First, get rid of selfhood, and then do what you will; it will all be good." It also helps to remember that not a single thought is true. Ramana once said, "Nirvikalpa samadhi (pure awareness without thought or perception) is the deepest state of mind, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state of mind." That statement points to something fundamentally important but unimaginable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2021 4:04:46 GMT -5
The title is a paraphrase from this video of Tulku Urgyen, probably the most circulated video of him online and in my opinion a decent summation of his teachings. However, this post is not really about him. I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. The 5-minute segment can be found here, and the longer dialogue can be found on youtube and Sam's website. Please watch this short segment to get everything that follows! Basically, this is a discussion about the difference between thinking about how lovely nonduality is, how beautiful the teaching is, and how lucky we are to have found it, and being the reality that we are in a primarily non-conceptual way. Sam's anecdote really hits this point well, in that it highlights a difference between Poonjaji and Tulku Urgyen: at least within this instance, Poonjaji is happy to give the intellectual understanding that there is no doer and nothing to accomplish and leave it at that, while Tulku Urgyen is quick to point out to this individual seeker that they still have a ways to go in terms of actually being free from the constantly shifting mind and it's conceptual ensnarement. Despite the obvious fact that the sense of authorship and selfhood is an illusion (I think many at least have glimpsed this and know it to be true), there is clearly a night-and-day difference between actually resting in/as non-conceptual being and simply being content with the conceptual framework of the teaching. Even though I say "being content", I don't think the mere intellectual understanding leads to contentment in any lasting sense, though if it did this would all be moot! Although I don't see any reason why thought needs to be kept at bay forever or concepts villainized, there seems to be an obvious difference between those who are primarily living through their senses bodies directly, and those primarily in their abstract, heady existence. Thoughts? Sam's imagination about his listener's and his ideas about "testing enlightenment" don't seem to me to be the product of a quiet mind, and Jim said exactly the same thing that E' used to say: people hearing "there is nothing to do", just haven't been listening. Although, personally, I've written "there's nothing to do" more than once on this forum over the years. It's a matter of timing, you see. The dichotomy itself is ultimately a creation of intellect, and as RM might have said, "who is it that would rest in/as non-conceptual being, and who is it that is currently not content?". This, is a dance of shadows. It's true enough that one can hide in an even deeper shadow of self-deception that they have nothing left to realize/experience of any existential significance. Ironically - and perhaps, hopefully - even someone with something left to realize can see the potential of that self-deception. Some shadows, are deeper than others. But shadows, they most definitely are. As we've beaten to death in the megathreads multiple times here there is a two-sided coin: some people are in a position where suggesting some sort of meditative practice can lead them to the edge of realization, other's are stuck in a position of attachment to their practices. Or, their "quiet mind"'s. There is no one size that fits all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 4, 2021 9:51:47 GMT -5
The title is a paraphrase from this video of Tulku Urgyen, probably the most circulated video of him online and in my opinion a decent summation of his teachings. However, this post is not really about him. I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. The 5-minute segment can be found here, and the longer dialogue can be found on youtube and Sam's website. Please watch this short segment to get everything that follows! Basically, this is a discussion about the difference between thinking about how lovely nonduality is, how beautiful the teaching is, and how lucky we are to have found it, and being the reality that we are in a primarily non-conceptual way. Sam's anecdote really hits this point well, in that it highlights a difference between Poonjaji and Tulku Urgyen: at least within this instance, Poonjaji is happy to give the intellectual understanding that there is no doer and nothing to accomplish and leave it at that, while Tulku Urgyen is quick to point out to this individual seeker that they still have a ways to go in terms of actually being free from the constantly shifting mind and it's conceptual ensnarement. Despite the obvious fact that the sense of authorship and selfhood is an illusion (I think many at least have glimpsed this and know it to be true), there is clearly a night-and-day difference between actually resting in/as non-conceptual being and simply being content with the conceptual framework of the teaching. Even though I say "being content", I don't think the mere intellectual understanding leads to contentment in any lasting sense, though if it did this would all be moot! Although I don't see any reason why thought needs to be kept at bay forever or concepts villainized, there seems to be an obvious difference between those who are primarily living through their senses bodies directly, and those primarily in their abstract, heady existence. Thoughts? In terms of manifesting, it's actually a really great question you asked (I enjoyed the content of the message too, I liked the way you expressed the distinctions). If I look back at the peak moments of my day, my week, my whole life, I think it's fair to say that those moments, or periods, are free from a particular KIND of thought. Some of those moments have been playing sports of different kinds, listening to music, intimate moments with another person, laughing with friends, in meditation, stroking a pet, singing to my kids, the sense of landing at a different country and waking up the next morning knowing that everything is different. One of my most blissful periods was being on a bus with a group of people I'd met that day, travelling up the stark coast of Western Australia. I'm not going to pretend that the drugs I took as a young adult weren't often amazing. I think all the best moments have a commonality, in that they express different aspects of our true nature, whether it's Freedom, or Love, or Joy, or Play, or Success. And those moments are focused in the present for the most part (there are exceptions...I have had deeply blissful moments reflecting on the past). Those moments are free from doubt, worry, 'analysis'. There is a deep acceptance, a connectivity, a sense of expansion perhaps. And significantly perhaps, a sense of naturalness. Thank you for inviting me to ponder that, it was a 'feel-good' reflective 10 minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2021 17:46:48 GMT -5
One of my favorite quotes from Tolle: "The greatest attainment is freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought." Thinking is just a habit that's unnecessary 99% of the time, but the path of ND involves much more than the ability to stop thinking and remain conceptually quiescent, although conceptual quiescence generally results in a wide range of existential realizations--seeing though the illusion selfhood, seeing how thoughts usually keep one separated from the truth of what one IS, seeing that reality is not what is usually imagined, apprehending the Infinity of THIS directly, etc. I think it was Bunan who said, "First, get rid of selfhood, and then do what you will; it will all be good." It also helps to remember that not a single thought is true. Ramana once said, "Nirvikalpa samadhi (pure awareness without thought or perception) is the deepest state of mind, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state of mind." That statement points to something fundamentally important but unimaginable. Technical side point: your message has your words inside the quote of Xiao, so it looks like he said them. When that happens, you can select the "BBCode" tab and manually fix the [quote] ... [/quote] markers.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 5, 2021 6:25:26 GMT -5
One of my favorite quotes from Tolle: "The greatest attainment is freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought." Thinking is just a habit that's unnecessary 99% of the time, but the path of ND involves much more than the ability to stop thinking and remain conceptually quiescent, although conceptual quiescence generally results in a wide range of existential realizations--seeing though the illusion selfhood, seeing how thoughts usually keep one separated from the truth of what one IS, seeing that reality is not what is usually imagined, apprehending the Infinity of THIS directly, etc. I think it was Bunan who said, "First, get rid of selfhood, and then do what you will; it will all be good." It also helps to remember that not a single thought is true. Ramana once said, "Nirvikalpa samadhi (pure awareness without thought or perception) is the deepest state of mind, but sahaja samadhi is the highest state of mind." That statement points to something fundamentally important but unimaginable. Technical side point: your message has your words inside the quote of Xiao, so it looks like he said them. When that happens, you can select the "BBCode" tab and manually fix the [quote] ... [/quote] markers. Thanks. When I saw that, I didn't want to re-type the whole thing again, and although my computer is a Mac, my keyboard is a Dell, and I don't know how to copy and paste text with this configuration. With a Mac keyboard, I can hit "Command Save" but "Control Save" doesn't work like it does on a PC. I've tried all kinds of ways to copy and paste, but nothing seems to work. When my Mac keyboard went on the fritz, I tired to buy another one, but my local dealer didn't have one, and I haven't yet gotten around to contacting a buddy with a warehouse full of old computers. Where is the BBCode tab? Remember, you're dealing with a Luddite.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 5, 2021 9:21:05 GMT -5
Yes. Push-button enlightenment can be real. There is talk that some of RM's followers were free upon just hearing that the self is an illusion. But many nowadays who claim freedom are fooled by their ego. You see them unravel in the face of adversity. Being a seeker with quite a few active vasanas, I am familiar with their posturing.
Others though, seem quite at peace even in the thick of life's violent undulations.
RM suggested a path of savigalpa samadhi, mind resting with effort, would eventually lead to ever increasing instances of waking samadhi that is effortless. This has been my experience.
And I'm kind of with Harris on this. Much of the freedom claimed is fools gold.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 5, 2021 10:30:51 GMT -5
Yes. Push-button enlightenment can be real. There is talk that some of RM's followers were free upon just hearing that the self is an illusion. But many nowadays who claim freedom are fooled by their ego. You see them unravel in the face of adversity. Being a seeker with quite a few active vasanas, I am familiar with their posturing. Others though, seem quite at peace even in the thick of life's violent undulations. RM suggested a path of savigalpa samadhi, mind resting with effort, would eventually lead to ever increasing instances of waking samadhi that is effortless. This has been my experience. And I'm kind of with Harris on this. Much of the freedom claimed is fools gold.I'm with you on that, only because I learned Advaitaspeak very well at one point and I think I could've easily led a few seekers around if I was willing to fool myself into thinking that such an understanding was sufficient. It's very tricky to talk about however, because it really is true that there's nobody to do anything and nothing to do, but I feel that this is more of a proclamation by those who've realized it than a teaching tool with a high efficacy rate. Was reading Robert Adams earlier and it's such a refreshing teaching style compared to a lot of what goes on these days. This lovely oscillation between "All is well" and "it's a matter of stopping your thoughts. We have to stop thinking." The pointer towards Silence that he clearly got from Ramana shines through beautifully and it really is difficult to read much from these guys without closing the book and just wanting to sit in silence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2021 11:10:23 GMT -5
Yes. Push-button enlightenment can be real. There is talk that some of RM's followers were free upon just hearing that the self is an illusion. But many nowadays who claim freedom are fooled by their ego. You see them unravel in the face of adversity. Being a seeker with quite a few active vasanas, I am familiar with their posturing. Others though, seem quite at peace even in the thick of life's violent undulations. RM suggested a path of savigalpa samadhi, mind resting with effort, would eventually lead to ever increasing instances of waking samadhi that is effortless. This has been my experience. And I'm kind of with Harris on this. Much of the freedom claimed is fools gold. So, Sam tells a narrative of a fake enlightenment unraveling at the challenge .. "we'll just wait here until you have your next thought". Now, I can understand and see the point of his perspective, but can you discern an alternative interpretation? Try to imagine it from the perspective of the woman in the story.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 5, 2021 11:12:08 GMT -5
Yes. Push-button enlightenment can be real. There is talk that some of RM's followers were free upon just hearing that the self is an illusion. But many nowadays who claim freedom are fooled by their ego. You see them unravel in the face of adversity. Being a seeker with quite a few active vasanas, I am familiar with their posturing. Others though, seem quite at peace even in the thick of life's violent undulations. RM suggested a path of savigalpa samadhi, mind resting with effort, would eventually lead to ever increasing instances of waking samadhi that is effortless. This has been my experience. And I'm kind of with Harris on this. Much of the freedom claimed is fools gold.I'm with you on that, only because I learned Advaitaspeak very well at one point and I think I could've easily led a few seekers around if I was willing to fool myself into thinking that such an understanding was sufficient. It's very tricky to talk about however, because it really is true that there's nobody to do anything and nomthing to do, but I feel that this is more of a proclamation by those who've realized it than a teaching tool with a high efficacy rate. Was reading Robert Adams earlier and it's such a refreshing teaching style compared to a lot of what goes on these days. This lovely oscillation between "All is well" and "it's a matter of stopping your thoughts. We have to stop thinking." The pointer towards Silence that he clearly got from Ramana shines through beautifully and it really is difficult to read much from these guys without closing the book and just wanting to sit in silence. I've read Adams book a few times. My favorite passage is where he tells the reader to run from folks who claim enlightenment. I think it's sound advice.
|
|
|
Post by shadowplay on Jun 5, 2021 13:48:28 GMT -5
I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. I’m not even sure that I would call Jim Newman’s message, nonduality. It seems closer to good old fashioned metaphysical solipsism to me. There are hints of it throughout the full conversation here’s an example:
JN> This conversation is the whole of everything - there’s nothing outside of it - there is only this instantaneous is-ness which can’t be objectified. This instantaneousness that’s appearing now.
SH> The experiential component of this conversation doesn’t subsume all of reality - whatever that is - all together. You and I could suffer heart attacks in the middle of this conversation and the city of Paris would be unaffected.
JN> (Raising his voice slightly) You’re trying to talk to somebody about it and I keep referencing that there isn’t anybody to tell. It’s recognised that there isn’t anyone anywhere. The only time that there’s someone else is when someone, a body goes, there’s somebody here, otherwise there isn’t.
Some of this I resonate with. ‘There is only this instantaneous is-ness’ is a nice pointer but the conclusions that follow from it are muddled. He seems to be accepting some parts of the relative while rejecting others. And he makes the all-too-common leap from an epistemological limitation (there is only instantaneous is-ness) to an ontological truth (there exists nothing other than this particular instant.) By extension this is a refutation of other minds. This is metaphysical solipsism.
Now I am aware of the tricksy arguments that could ensue at this point. This is the thing about metaphysical solipsism, it’s an unfalsifiable doctrine. This has great appeal to the intellect.
And just to be clear about the above, ultimately no one does exist - it’s ALL Source being THIS. But it’s acknowledged that this is the Absolute Relative-ing. And in the relative story there is no reason to deny parts of it while conveniently utilising other parts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 14:18:25 GMT -5
Technical side point: your message has your words inside the quote of Xiao, so it looks like he said them. When that happens, you can select the "BBCode" tab and manually fix the [quote] ... [/quote] markers. Thanks. When I saw that, I didn't want to re-type the whole thing again, and although my computer is a Mac, my keyboard is a Dell, and I don't know how to copy and paste text with this configuration. With a Mac keyboard, I can hit "Command Save" but "Control Save" doesn't work like it does on a PC. I've tried all kinds of ways to copy and paste, but nothing seems to work. When my Mac keyboard went on the fritz, I tired to buy another one, but my local dealer didn't have one, and I haven't yet gotten around to contacting a buddy with a warehouse full of old computers. Where is the BBCode tab? Remember, you're dealing with a Luddite. Below is a screenshot of my laptop screen, as I reply to you. I see a screen like this when I create new threads, or when I reply to a post. I'm in the Safari web browser on a laptop, so I think yours should look similar. See the two tabs at the bottom. It's starts in "Preview" for me, but you can edit the raw BBCode if you click on "BBCode". I need to do that for quotes sometimes. Sometimes it's impossible to delete a quote in Preview mode. As far as Cut/Copy/Paste goes, on a Mac, you have a few options. I'm not sure what you mean by "Command Save". I don't have a "Save" key. Maybe an external keyboard has one off to the side? 1. The menus. At the top of your screen, in the "Edit" menu, usually there are items for "Cut", "Copy", "Paste", and others. You can select text and then select those items. This allows you cut/copy/paste if the keyboard is not working. 2. Keyboard shortcuts: ⌘-X,⌘-C, ⌘-V. That "⌘" is usually called "command" on Apple systems. So the shortcut for paste is "Command V", for example. These shortcuts are listed in the "Edit" menu at the top of the screen. If you have a non-standard keyboard, it may not be obvious what the ⌘ (command) key is. It could be a "Windows" or "Meta" key. If there's nothing, you can create keymaps in the System preferences, but I'll skip that for now.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 5, 2021 15:34:08 GMT -5
I came across a fascinating story hidden within the podcast that Sam Harris had with Jim Newman recently. For those of you who aren't familiar, Sam is a neuroscientist with a life-long interest and practice in both mindfulness (ala Joseph Goldstein and the like) and Dzogchen (via Tulku Urgyen and his recently popular son, Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche), and Jim Newman is a very radical teacher of nonduality, similar to Tony Parsons but arguably even more extreme in his semantics. I’m not even sure that I would call Jim Newman’s message, nonduality. It seems closer to good old fashioned metaphysical solipsism to me. There are hints of it throughout the full conversation here’s an example:
JN> This conversation is the whole of everything - there’s nothing outside of it - there is only this instantaneous is-ness which can’t be objectified. This instantaneousness that’s appearing now.
SH> The experiential component of this conversation doesn’t subsume all of reality - whatever that is - all together. You and I could suffer heart attacks in the middle of this conversation and the city of Paris would be unaffected.
JN> (Raising his voice slightly) You’re trying to talk to somebody about it and I keep referencing that there isn’t anybody to tell. It’s recognised that there isn’t anyone anywhere. The only time that there’s someone else is when someone, a body goes, there’s somebody here, otherwise there isn’t. [/b][/b] Some of this I resonate with. ‘There is only this instantaneous is-ness’ is a nice pointer but the conclusions that follow from it are muddled. He seems to be accepting some parts of the relative while rejecting others. And he makes the all-too-common leap from an epistemological limitation (there is only instantaneous is-ness) to an ontological truth (there exists nothing other than this particular instant.) By extension this is a refutation of other minds. This is metaphysical solipsism. Now I am aware of the tricksy arguments that could ensue at this point. This is the thing about metaphysical solipsism, it’s an unfalsifiable doctrine. This has great appeal to the intellect. And just to be clear about the above, ultimately no one does exist - it’s ALL Source being THIS. But it’s acknowledged that this is the Absolute Relative-ing. And in the relative story there is no reason to deny parts of it while conveniently utilising other parts. [/div][/quote] The bolded made me chuckle. I get the impression his perspective hinges on the concepts of 'instantaneous' and 'instantaneousness'. I imagine he says those words a lot I think to speak of 'instant' or 'instantaneous' is to put oneself into the context of objectification (nothing wrong with doing that). So to then speak of 'instantaneous isness which can't be objectified' strikes me as a contradiction in terms, and I imagine it goes pear shaped from there. But maybe I'm doing him an injustice, I haven't listened to him beyond just those few words.
|
|