Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 21:28:33 GMT -5
Why don't you put me on "ignore"? Because I don't mind the posts. Also, if you set someone on "ignore" you still see other people replying to them and it messes up the flow of the thread in my opinion. I noticed you didn't answer my question, or anything Reefs said last week. I think you ask some fair questions, or make fair points (sort of), but you've made them many times. And it seems you can't take even a fraction of what you give out to others.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 16, 2021 22:05:09 GMT -5
Why don't you put me on "ignore"? Because I don't mind the posts. Also, if you set someone on "ignore" you still see other people replying to them and it messes up the flow of the thread in my opinion. I noticed you didn't answer my question, or anything Reefs said last week. I think you ask some fair questions, or make fair points (sort of), but you've made them many times. And it seems you can't take even a fraction of what you give out to others. I agree with, and apply Seth's advice: "Any anger or hostility should also be expressed, however, while not being overly concentrated upon." (in the context of his advice about health: link)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2021 6:38:40 GMT -5
Because I don't mind the posts. Also, if you set someone on "ignore" you still see other people replying to them and it messes up the flow of the thread in my opinion. I noticed you didn't answer my question, or anything Reefs said last week. I think you ask some fair questions, or make fair points (sort of), but you've made them many times. And it seems you can't take even a fraction of what you give out to others. I agree with, and apply Seth's advice: "Any anger or hostility should also be expressed, however, while not being overly concentrated upon." (in the context of his advice about health: link) I've participated in spiritual groups where people asked each other challenging questions or pushed each other, as a kind of spiritual practice. If someone had "issues" it can sometimes get unhealthy, but ideally it is analogous to sport or physical exercise – there can be a temporary discomfort or pain, but overall benefit. The challenges can provoke honest introspection, help shake off false ideas, or clarify one's thinking or feeling. So, when I hear, or ask, a challenging question, that's often how I'm looking at it. It's like an exercise at a gym, or like a healthy game, not an expression of "anger or hostility". However... I am aware that in the larger society such dialogue is often considered impolite or hostile. And even in this spiritual context, it may require a background of friendship and trust that may not exist here in the anonymous internet world between certain forum members.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 17, 2021 7:21:39 GMT -5
I'm just sharing my experience. I didn't say anything about anybody behaving differently in the past. Everything just happens and happens in the only way it can happen, I agree. But we can observe what happens. Can. All I can say is that attention exists outside of conditioning, you can explore that, or not. All conditioning is a knee-jerk mechanism, I agree. There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind. This entire mess is cleared up when there are no thoughts. But nonduality and zen (also just thoughts) don't address the transcendence of thought and the unreality of experience. And so the blah blah blah will continue until you have 20,000 posts, and you still won't understand what Stardust and i are relating. Consciousness that will not give up thought will not give up experience, so goes Samsara. The world ends upon full realization. What are you holding onto? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 17, 2021 7:35:43 GMT -5
I can't help it if you are jumping to conclusions I didn't say and have never said in 12 years here. Read the Ramana quotes in the OP again. If ~we~ couldn't do what he said to do I've sure he would never have given those instructions. Same for Niz's teacher. If it were not possible to remain in I Am, Niz's teacher would never have told him to do so. Saying to observe with attention in no way suggests we can do anything else. When you say yes, you couldn't have said no. When you say no, you couldn't have said yes. But it's possible to observe doing so. All this doesn't mean the conditioned self is doing anything, it's not, it can't. Are you completely the conditioning, completely the conditioned self? I know I am not. But a man is not able to say what he himself really is. The point that Xiao and I are making is that THIS/Source/Self is the only actor on the stage. THIS, in the form of Tony Parsons, tells people that there's nothing a "me" can do because "me" is imaginary. THIS, in the form of yours truly, advises ATA-T or any of several other "beyond the mind" activities. THIS, in the form of Niz, told people to stay in the I Am. THIS, in the form of a traditional Zen Master, advises people to sit in meditation. THIS is always interacting with ITSELF because there is no "other." When Jesus, as THIS, taught the parable about the farmer who threw seeds on the ground, this is what he, as THIS, was pointing to. THIS, in the form of humans, never knows how THIS will react to whatever is said. I might tell ten people about the value of shifting attention beyond the mind, and only one individual will resonate with that pointer. There's no way to predict what will happen because THIS is mysterious. THIS (all experience/phenomena) is the relative/illusion. It goes away when attention is removed from it. The Absolute is not on equal level as the relative. Attention is being shifted every waking second. Do you deny this? The shifting of awareness does not require the thought "I am going to shift Awareness." therefore it does not generate/project ego. It is the subtlest and most profound Spiritual practice. It may in fact be the only practice that can be called "Spiritual". And if you're not engaging in Spiritual practice you are playing the game horizontally when the exit/goal is vertical
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 17, 2021 7:39:43 GMT -5
I guess you can say there's nothing to be done except come to my satsang and not be contradicting yourself. See that's why all this talk just spins my brain up. I need a respite. You guys are making me think again, but I see now that's not possible. I'll call this Cracker Jack advaita. ND is definitely "Cracker Jack Adviata", with no prize.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 17, 2021 8:56:35 GMT -5
All numbers are abstractions, there is no 2 in the "material" world. So I don't understand your distinction between 9 and 10. He's mistaking numbers themselves with the symbols for the numbers. In hexidecimal (base-16), 10 is written as simply "A", so he wouldn't have a problem until he got to 14,15, 16 which in hex is spelt: E,F, 10. You have base-two-million if you wanted. Not practical for humans. Maybe with a writing system like those aliens in Arrival. There's probably no reason to get into math if one isn't naturally drawn to it, but for what it's worth, Franklin Merrell-Wolff thought it was part of his path to non-duality. It seems he was an odd-ball. It is a weird and interesting question whether or how a mathematical object "exists". Eg: a number, a circle, a function, etc. The point is that we are taught that numbers relate to/are expressing the physical realm via counting. This is an incorrect interpretation of the information presented by the number system. The information presented by the number system relates to/is expressing SERIES. Series is operational system on which biological evolution operates. The number system is a model/map of the evolution of consciousness. It has nothing to do with quantity. Humanity is at the 10. Human consciousness is being controlled via thought to create the technology that is constructing the next iteration of Samsara, which is 11. This is the digital realm which is a redundancy of this current simulation/iteration. People really should dive deeply into the OP with an open mind and try to see what is being related rather than trying to shoe horn it into their own model. Drop everything you have been taught about numbers and math. All of mathematics is based upon the initial incorrect interpretation of the message presented by the number system. The convoluted mess that is the definition of 10, in conjunction with the 360 pages required in Mathematica Principia to "prove" that 1+1=2 are glaring indications that something is being shoe-horned/forced to "make sense." This is a big deal. It doesn't get any bigger. ALL OF MATHEMATICS IS WRONG. It's wrong in that it is leading consciousness exactly, 180 degrees AWAY from Truth/Reality, not closer to it. Yes it "works", but the fundamental purpose of mathematics is to simply churn out thought in order to have something relative from which to derive the ego. Mathematics is a completely abstract realm where consciousness goes to reaffirm "I think, therefore I am." and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 17, 2021 9:10:54 GMT -5
" I am adamant that the the voice in your head is physical. Is your brain physical? Thoughts arise from neural connection in the brain. All conceptual activity is based on a tiny gap between neurons, the synapse. Electrical activity activates a neural transmitter which crosses the synaptic gap. If enough electrical activity causes enough of these synapses to pass on the message, thoughts occur. Thoughts are definitely physical."
This is nuts. Show me a thought. Is it outside of my body? What initiates the "Electrical activity activates a neural transmitter which crosses the synaptic gap."? Nothing from the "external" world. One may say that the electrical activity activated by a physical object produces the experience of that object, but a thought has no external activating agent.
The brain may be the interface between the thought and physical realms but that does not necessitate a causal relationship.
Thoughts are not physical. This is self-evident.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Aug 17, 2021 9:48:55 GMT -5
There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind. This entire mess is cleared up when there are no thoughts. But nonduality and zen (also just thoughts) don't address the transcendence of thought and the unreality of experience. And so the blah blah blah will continue until you have 20,000 posts, and you still won't understand what Stardust and i are relating. Consciousness that will not give up thought will not give up experience, so goes Samsara. The world ends upon full realization. What are you holding onto? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra Just for the record, i'd say that Zen definitely addresses the transcendence of thought, and 無心 / 無念 are some of the most common teachings in the Chan tradition. It's literally "no mind" and it is in certain schools the beginning and end of the teaching. It's literally the OG "One Step Path" in that sense. Nonduality in the more traditional Vedantic lineages of Chinmayananda and others is quite "heady" and it's not uncommon to see them using a chalkboard or easel stand when teaching. Zen is completely on the other end of the spectrum on the whole and there's plenty who see it as Daoism in Buddhist clothing, but I am surprised to see someone say that it doesn't address the transcendence of thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2021 9:51:55 GMT -5
He's mistaking numbers themselves with the symbols for the numbers. In hexidecimal (base-16), 10 is written as simply "A", so he wouldn't have a problem until he got to 14,15, 16 which in hex is spelt: E,F, 10. You have base-two-million if you wanted. Not practical for humans. Maybe with a writing system like those aliens in Arrival. There's probably no reason to get into math if one isn't naturally drawn to it, but for what it's worth, Franklin Merrell-Wolff thought it was part of his path to non-duality. It seems he was an odd-ball. It is a weird and interesting question whether or how a mathematical object "exists". Eg: a number, a circle, a function, etc. The point is that we are taught that numbers relate to/are expressing the physical realm via counting. This is an incorrect interpretation of the information presented by the number system. The information presented by the number system relates to/is expressing SERIES. Series is operational system on which biological evolution operates. The number system is a model/map of the evolution of consciousness. It has nothing to do with quantity. Humanity is at the 10. Human consciousness is being controlled via thought to create the technology that is constructing the next iteration of Samsara, which is 11. This is the digital realm which is a redundancy of this current simulation/iteration. People really should dive deeply into the OP with an open mind and try to see what is being related rather than trying to shoe horn it into their own model. Drop everything you have been taught about numbers and math. All of mathematics is based upon the initial incorrect interpretation of the message presented by the number system. The convoluted mess that is the definition of 10, in conjunction with the 360 pages required in Mathematica Principia to "prove" that 1+1=2 are glaring indications that something is being shoe-horned/forced to "make sense." This is a big deal. It doesn't get any bigger. ALL OF MATHEMATICS IS WRONG. It's wrong in that it is leading consciousness exactly, 180 degrees AWAY from Truth/Reality, not closer to it. Yes it "works", but the fundamental purpose of mathematics is to simply churn out thought in order to have something relative from which to derive the ego. Mathematics is a completely abstract realm where consciousness goes to reaffirm "I think, therefore I am." and nothing else. I have no illusion that mathematical thought is giving me absolute truth. I sit in silence because what Ramana Maharshi said appeals to my intuition as well. So I agree with you on that. But, can't you see that "10" is only different from "9" because of the writing system? It's not the number itself that crossed any kind of threshold; only the writing system did. It's not "convoluted". Your confused thinking about it is what is convoluted. Math is only "wrong" if you take it to be something it's not. You are the one doing that, not math itself. It's like walking up to a flower and going on a rant "This flower is WRONG I tell you!!", because the "flower" (seen as a separate thing) is not "absolute truth". Well, stop trying to make it into something it's not!
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 17, 2021 9:56:35 GMT -5
To seekers like me who require more than an explanation, pointers, Ramana offered this advice. First, a brief explanation of terms by Godman.
"The following brief definitions formulated by Sri Ramana should be sufficient to guide the uninitiated through the terminological jungle of samadhi: 1 Holding on to reality is samadhi. 2 Holding on to reality with effort is savikalpa samadhi. 3 Merging in reality and remaining unaware of the world is nirvikalpa samadhi. 4 Merging in ignorance and remaining unaware of the world is sleep. 5 Remaining in the primal, pure, natural state without effort is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi
Ramana said this about savikalpa samadhi: "Abiding permanently in any of these samadhis, either savikalpa or nirvikalpa, is sahaja [the natural state]."
The realization that effort is an illusion, can't be foisted on to you by repetition. It requires a certain kind of effort, practice.
The naysayers have adopted the conceptual (limited) understanding of Reality as dogma and parrot it like drones. Avoid them, don't be seduced by fools gold. Note the acrimony, nastiness and ridicule in their posts. These are not happy people. Still "prisoners of their own devise." No different than you or me.
If you have an interest in savikalpa (Self enquiry or remembrance or study), go to sifty's site or talk to ZD about ATA-T or sdp. There are hundreds of sources.
This will be your last endeavor. It is simple, don't let the mind turn it into a graduate level physics problem. But it is arduous. Persistence and passion are much more important than cleverness. Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2021 11:11:48 GMT -5
He's mistaking numbers themselves with the symbols for the numbers. In hexidecimal (base-16), 10 is written as simply "A", so he wouldn't have a problem until he got to 14,15, 16 which in hex is spelt: E,F, 10. You have base-two-million if you wanted. Not practical for humans. Maybe with a writing system like those aliens in Arrival. There's probably no reason to get into math if one isn't naturally drawn to it, but for what it's worth, Franklin Merrell-Wolff thought it was part of his path to non-duality. It seems he was an odd-ball. It is a weird and interesting question whether or how a mathematical object "exists". Eg: a number, a circle, a function, etc. A loose ND definition of the word "ex-ist" is "from" (ex) "what is" (ist). IOW, "to exist" is "to come forth from." From what? From what a physicist might conceive of as "a superposition of infinite potentiality, or in ND terms, THIS. In this sense, whatever we choose to distinguish as any "thing" is an imaginary separation of THIS into at least two states (that which is the thing and that which is not the thing). This is why a parlor game is to imagine new distinctions that have not yet been imagined, and then to give them names. The only one that has lasted through the years in our family is "glurch." A glurch is "someone who stops the line from moving forward." If you're standing in line at a store, and your line comes to a stop while other lines keep moving forward, you will know that your line had a glurch in it. Haha! Does a glurch actually exist? Only if you want to imagine one. Does a mathematical object exist? Only if we want to imagine that it does. Does a tree exist? Same same. If we don't imagine anything (any thing), then there is only the nameless and formless--THIS. Niz: "When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless. I'm still confused about this. It seems like there are different levels or intensities of 'existence' and 'imagination'. I can imagine a pink unicorn right now.... there... it was a flimsy existence in my "mind's eye". But something else, like say a "tree" or the "number 3", seems to be much more independent of imagination. People would commonly say it is "outside" or has independent existence in the "world", because these things seem to present themselves to consciousness with their own power/existence, and consistency, unlike my imagining a pink unicorn. I see that my own imagination labels the "tree" and draws a boundary in the visual field that is somewhat artificial, but that seems different from their raw existence. Or maybe you mean "God" imagines the tree, while it was merely the ego-mind that was imagining the unicorn, which explains the difference in intensity. .... back to meditation ...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 17, 2021 12:15:00 GMT -5
A loose ND definition of the word "ex-ist" is "from" (ex) "what is" (ist). IOW, "to exist" is "to come forth from." From what? From what a physicist might conceive of as "a superposition of infinite potentiality, or in ND terms, THIS. In this sense, whatever we choose to distinguish as any "thing" is an imaginary separation of THIS into at least two states (that which is the thing and that which is not the thing). This is why a parlor game is to imagine new distinctions that have not yet been imagined, and then to give them names. The only one that has lasted through the years in our family is "glurch." A glurch is "someone who stops the line from moving forward." If you're standing in line at a store, and your line comes to a stop while other lines keep moving forward, you will know that your line had a glurch in it. Haha! Does a glurch actually exist? Only if you want to imagine one. Does a mathematical object exist? Only if we want to imagine that it does. Does a tree exist? Same same. If we don't imagine anything (any thing), then there is only the nameless and formless--THIS. Niz: "When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless. I'm still confused about this. It seems like there are different levels or intensities of 'existence' and 'imagination'. I can imagine a pink unicorn right now.... there... it was a flimsy existence in my "mind's eye". But something else, like say a "tree" or the "number 3", seems to be much more independent of imagination. People would commonly say it is "outside" or has independent existence in the "world", because these things seem to present themselves to consciousness with their own power/existence, and consistency, unlike my imagining a pink unicorn. I see that my own imagination labels the "tree" and draws a boundary in the visual field that is somewhat artificial, but that seems different from their raw existence. Or maybe you mean "God" imagines the tree, while it was merely the ego-mind that was imagining the unicorn, which explains the difference in intensity. .... back to meditation ... Well, the ability to imagine anything (any thing), whether it's a pink unicorn, or a relationship, or a quality, or an abstract boundary (where there is no boundary) is the same mental function. We imagine a boundary that defines how we distinguish what we call "a tree." There is no actual boundary than can be seen; it is totally imaginary, but we've been conditioned since childhood to imagine that a tree is a distinct thing with boundaries, and we've learned to associate the image of a tree with the word "tree." If we choose to do so, we can see the image of a tree in the mind's eye in the exact same way that we can see the image of a pink unicorn in the mind's eye. There's no difference at all. Interestingly, when I did some imagination experiments with students many years ago, some students pictured a bare-boned tree without leaves and some students pictured a tree like a big bushy green shrub. The illusion that boundaries exist can be penetrated intellectually by closely examining any boundary. The example I usually suggest is the boundary between a hand and a wrist. I ask people to take a pen or a magic marker and draw the boundary. When they attempt to do so, they discover that they have no idea where to draw the line between those two "objects." The outline of a hand seems quite distinct (although it's not for people who understand what's happening at the surface of the skin), but the line separating a hand from a wrist is not distinct at all. Is a wrist one inch long, two inches? The fundamental question (besides distinguishing the difference between what's actual and what's imaginary) is who, or what, is the imaginer, thinker, see-er? We could call it "God" or "Self" or "Source," or "Oneness," or "an infinite field of intelligent awareness," or whatever other word(s) might have appeal, but if there's only oneness, oneness is the only actor on the stage. This is why Enigma used to say, "(in the form of humans) God falls into his own dream." In this sense waking up from the dream of separateness can be humorously conceived as a game that God likes to play. In fact, Hindu mythology can be summarized as "God enjoys playing a game of hide and seek with Itself." The reason that sages say that no person ever gets enlightened is for that precise reason. The cosmic joke is that there is no separate person who ever attains anything. The realization that Zen people call "satori" is the realization that no SVP ever existed. Consequently, the joke is always on "me"--who we thought we were. Using the ocean/wave metaphor, the waves on the surface of the ocean are not separate from the ocean. A wave is simply the ocean waving, and ITSW humans are the Infinite humaning.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2021 12:17:13 GMT -5
There is no outside or inside. Outside and inside are ideas! The idea of conditioning presupposes an entity that is conditioned, but there is no such entity. The truth is beyond imagining but it includes imagining. I'm pointing to what is unconditioned, unborn, undying, undivided, infinite, unchanging, and incomprehensible to the mind. This entire mess is cleared up when there are no thoughts. But nonduality and zen (also just thoughts) don't address the transcendence of thought and the unreality of experience. And so the blah blah blah will continue until you have 20,000 posts, and you still won't understand what Stardust and i are relating. Consciousness that will not give up thought will not give up experience, so goes Samsara. The world ends upon full realization. What are you holding onto? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra While I have no objection to, and "understand" the " unreality of experience", it's only half the story. To borrow from a Zen aphorism, it is when "mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 17, 2021 12:20:29 GMT -5
The point that Xiao and I are making is that THIS/Source/Self is the only actor on the stage. THIS, in the form of Tony Parsons, tells people that there's nothing a "me" can do because "me" is imaginary. THIS, in the form of yours truly, advises ATA-T or any of several other "beyond the mind" activities. THIS, in the form of Niz, told people to stay in the I Am. THIS, in the form of a traditional Zen Master, advises people to sit in meditation. THIS is always interacting with ITSELF because there is no "other." When Jesus, as THIS, taught the parable about the farmer who threw seeds on the ground, this is what he, as THIS, was pointing to. THIS, in the form of humans, never knows how THIS will react to whatever is said. I might tell ten people about the value of shifting attention beyond the mind, and only one individual will resonate with that pointer. There's no way to predict what will happen because THIS is mysterious. THIS ( all experience/phenomena) is the relative/illusion. It goes away when attention is removed from it. The Absolute is not on equal level as the relative. Attention is being shifted every waking second. Do you deny this? The shifting of awareness does not require the thought "I am going to shift Awareness." therefore it does not generate/project ego. It is the subtlest and most profound Spiritual practice. It may in fact be the only practice that can be called "Spiritual". And if you're not engaging in Spiritual practice you are playing the game horizontally when the exit/goal is vertical "THIS" - in the way I understand zd's pointing - isn't a sum of sensory or material parts.
|
|