|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2022 10:27:53 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** You didn't answer any of my questions. Most are very simply answerable. When I came here I decided not to talk about experiences or practices. I've kept to that for the most part. All we have here are words. To make an effective map somebody had to have been to the territory in the first place. Of course maps are not the gold standard, I've never said they are. Any map in and of itself is useless. The telling wasn't for me, it was for you. I've always and only said attention and awareness are all that really matter. There was nothing to answer for me. All misconceived questions based on your personal ideas about CC/kensho/SR. You are not interested in an answer anyway. I noticed that in your dialogs with ZD. What you are interested in is creating the perfect or at least most effective map (or layer cake as Enigma called it). That's why I rarely talk to you about non-duality these days. It's a waste of time. On the other hand, discussing deliberate creation with you I find a lot more fruitful, especially recently.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 10:54:44 GMT -5
Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true. 1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense. I understood what you mean. But this is the philosopher's approach. It actually does sound more like Stoicism than Buddhism to me. And with that approach you'll never leave the confines of the intellect. Because everything that is beyond the intellect's grasp is by definition un-reasonable. But what do Tolle and Niz tell you? The truth lies beyond the intellect, beyond (or prior to) mind, Niz even goes so far as to say prior to consciousness. Does that sound reasonable? Hardly. It's un-thinkable. ZD likes to say that the truth cannot be imagined. These teachers sometimes give very good conceptual frameworks or maps. But the map is not the territory. The word 'honey' cannot give you the actual taste of honey. So whatever they offer is not it, no matter how much sense it makes, no matter how unassailable their logic. Whatever they offer is only a pointer, an invitation to find out for yourself, not an invitation to memorize or analyze their words. What they are pointing to lies beyond the sphere of the intellect and memory. What they are pointing to is the living truth. The intellect cannot deal with the living (actual), only with what is dead (conceptual). So even if you should stumble upon on the truth, mind has no way of recognizing it and will discard it as unreasonable and meaningless. But what is the meaning of a flower anyway? There is no answer to that question. The question itself is already absurd. The purpose of life is life. What everyone really wants is this experience of being fully alive in the here and now. Not some kind of truth or rules to live by. Your approach may work in modern everyday life, but it fails with existential questions. But these existential questions have to be resolved before you can truly have peace of mind. There's a saying, that in order to realize God you have to become God. Ramakrishna used the analogy of an elephant breaking into a little hut and thereby destroying it. That's what SR is like. What does the Daodejing say? That which is hard and rigid belongs to the realm of the dead, that which is soft and flexible belongs to the realm of the living. Similarly, what belongs to the realm of the intellect, is dead. What lies beyond or prior to the realm of the intellect, is alive. And so what you can find via the intellect is truth as an abstraction, a concept. The living truth, however, can only be found prior to the intellect. Which means logic and reason can't help you there. At best, logic and reason can lead to the realization that logic and reason don't work and so they sorta drop you off at the gateless gate. But logic and reason can't get you thru the gateless gate. I read TPON when it first came out. The very title speaks significance, especially if you already know now is significant. I can usually browse a book about ten minutes and find out if there is anything significant there, most times less. And sometimes I buy to see if there is anything else significant. How can one access now? Can thought? No. Thought is the very definition of the movement of time. I was taught how to access now 46 years ago. I had heard of Niz long ago, over 20 years ago. Did I need Niz? No. Coming here there was regular talk of Niz. I chanced on a perfect copy of I Am That in a used bookstore about 8 years ago, I didn't even browse, I just knew from talk here it was a significant book. I had a good while, maybe over a year, then laughter got me more interested. I picked it up and started reading. (BTW, I've never pointed out this connection, but have made it obvious previously. The title of Gurdjieff's 3rd book, Life Is Real, Only Then When "I Am"). I came to the part where Niz talked about obeying his teacher, to stay in the I Am as often as possible. That got me more interested, but that wasn't enough, kept reading. Niz talked about staying in I Am whenever he had spare time, when he wasn't working. That still sounded like a kind of mantra, which I already knew is not something significant in and of itself. So I kept reading, scattered within the conversations. Then I came to it, Niz said, I obeyed my teacher to stay in the I Am, in the sense of being. So then I knew, that was enough to tell me the teacher of Niz had indeed given him something significant. Now, that still doesn't say much in and of itself, but it combined with my knowledge and experience to tell me it was significant. So that told me the why and the how of the 3 years of practice by Niz, and the intensity of practice by Niz. Now, all of you here now disregard the instructions of the teacher of Niz. All of you (ND, not everyone) continually preach that SR depends upon nothing and it either happens or it doesn't happen. I can't help that, I can't influence how you post. But what you continually post tells me something. How does one access now? Through either attention or awareness. How does one access staying in the I Am in the sense of being? Through awareness. Now, the teacher of Niz could have gone a little deeper. It doesn't require time, time in the sense of time-practicing, or practicing-time. If you have followed, it requires not-being in time. It requires being in the present moment. Now, is timeless. So there is the principle of simultaneity. As practice does not require time, one can practice anytime. One can practice while doing anything. This is the principle of simultaneity. Now, I have said nothing, but I have said everything. But there is now a crack. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2022 10:57:41 GMT -5
1. I understood what you mean. But this is the philosopher's approach. It actually does sound more like Stoicism than Buddhism to me. And with that approach you'll never leave the confines of the intellect. 2. Because everything that is beyond the intellect's grasp is by definition un-reasonable. But what do Tolle and Niz tell you? The truth lies beyond the intellect, beyond (or prior to) mind, Niz even goes so far as to say prior to consciousness. Does that sound reasonable? 3. ZD likes to say that the truth cannot be imagined.4. These teachers sometimes give very good conceptual frameworks or maps. But the map is not the territory. The word 'honey' cannot give you the actual taste of honey. So whatever they offer is not it, no matter how much sense it makes, no matter how unassailable their logic. Whatever they offer is only a pointer, an invitation to find out for yourself, not an invitation to memorize or analyze their words.5. What they are pointing to lies beyond the sphere of the intellect and memory. What they are pointing to is the living truth. The intellect cannot deal with the living (actual), 6. only with what is dead (conceptual). So even if you should stumble upon on the truth, mind has no way of recognizing it and will discard it as unreasonable and meaningless. But what is the meaning of a flower anyway? There is no answer to that question. The question itself is already absurd. The purpose of life is life. What everyone really wants is this experience of being fully alive in the here and now. Not some kind of truth or rules to live by. Your approach may work in modern everyday life, but it fails with existential questions. But these existential questions have to be resolved before you can truly have peace of mind. There's a saying, that in order to realize God you have to become God. Ramakrishna used the analogy of an elephant breaking into a little hut and thereby destroying it. That's what SR is like. What does the Daodejing say? That which is hard and rigid belongs to the realm of the dead, that which is soft and flexible belongs to the realm of the living. Similarly, what belongs to the realm of the intellect, is dead. What lies beyond or prior to the realm of the intellect, is alive. And so what you can find via the intellect is truth as an abstraction, a concept. The living truth, however, can only be found prior to the intellect. Which means logic and reason can't help you there. At best, logic and reason can lead to the realization that logic and reason don't work and so they sorta drop you off at the gateless gate. But logic and reason can t get you thru the gateless gate. 1) step 3 2) yes it sounds reasonable to me 3) also reasonable
4) it's precisely analysing their words (step 2), hence we get a sense that they say something valid prior taking to step 3. otherwise we just read nis and tolle as in step 1 5) hence step 3 6) I can cover all your points within the 3 step ontology. It's just you have discarded steps 1 and 2.
Analyzing their words is what I call pointer-licking. That's missing the point of the pointer. And the problem with your step 3 is that what is reasonable depends on what you think where you are going is like. But as a seeker, you have no idea where you are even going, let alone what it is like. You only know that where you are right now is not it. What you have though is a million ideas in your head about where you are going and what it is going to be like, based on travel books you've read or postcards you received from others. Ask yourself, can reasoning out the taste of honey give you the actual experience of the taste of honey? You see, you have to main flawed premises: 1) you think reason matters on matters that are beyond reason 2) you think realizing your timeless true nature is a process in time
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 10:58:32 GMT -5
You didn't answer any of my questions. Most are very simply answerable. When I came here I decided not to talk about experiences or practices. I've kept to that for the most part. All we have here are words. To make an effective map somebody had to have been to the territory in the first place. Of course maps are not the gold standard, I've never said they are. Any map in and of itself is useless. The telling wasn't for me, it was for you. I've always and only said attention and awareness are all that really matter. There was nothing to answer for me. All misconceived questions based on your personal ideas about CC/kensho/SR. You are not interested in an answer anyway. I noticed that in your dialogs with ZD. What you are interested in is creating the perfect or at least most effective map (or layer cake as Enigma called it). That's why I rarely talk to you about non-duality these days. It's a waste of time. On the other hand, discussing deliberate creation with you I find a lot more fruitful, especially recently. No problem, any dialogue is appreciated. To each his own. I'm just exploring for mutual cracks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 11:09:20 GMT -5
1) step 3 2) yes it sounds reasonable to me 3) also reasonable
4) it's precisely analysing their words (step 2), hence we get a sense that they say something valid prior taking to step 3. otherwise we just read nis and tolle as in step 1 5) hence step 3 6) I can cover all your points within the 3 step ontology. It's just you have discarded steps 1 and 2.
Analyzing their words is what I call pointer-licking. That's missing the point of the pointer. And the problem with your step 3 is that what is reasonable depends on what you think where you are going is like. But as a seeker, you have no idea where you are even going, let alone what it is like. You only know that where you are right now is not it. What you have though is a million ideas in your head about where you are going and what it is going to be like, based on travel books you've read or postcards you received from others. Ask yourself, can reasoning out the taste of honey give you the actual experience of the taste of honey? You see, you have to main flawed premises: 1) you think reason matters on matters that are beyond reason 2) you think realizing your timeless true nature is a process in time I liked the analogy of the elephant demolishing the grass hut, I've never heard that before. Over 20 years ago I dialogued with some members of TAT. For a while I exchanged emails with a guy, his last name started with a W. It was something like Weisserman, or Weissman. That's not it, just a vague recollection. He lived in France then. We eventually discontinued conversation, and later I found out he moved back to the US. But we were on the same page about some things. ...Truth is always self-validating. To each his own. Looking for mutual cracks.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 11:29:16 GMT -5
There was nothing to answer for me. All misconceived questions based on your personal ideas about CC/kensho/SR. You are not interested in an answer anyway. I noticed that in your dialogs with ZD. What you are interested in is creating the perfect or at least most effective map (or layer cake as Enigma called it). That's why I rarely talk to you about non-duality these days. It's a waste of time. On the other hand, discussing deliberate creation with you I find a lot more fruitful, especially recently. No problem, any dialogue is appreciated. To each his own. I'm just exploring for mutual cracks. Exploring mutual cracks. I like that.
The reason why Reefs rejects my approach to spirituality is that I look for cracks in his picture of perfection. Reefs brand of spirituality is based on theism: the perfection of man symbolized by God.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 12:00:28 GMT -5
No problem, any dialogue is appreciated. To each his own. I'm just exploring for mutual cracks. Exploring mutual cracks. I like that.
The reason why Reefs rejects my approach to spirituality is that I look for cracks in his picture of perfection. Reefs brand of spirituality is based on theism: the perfection of man symbolized by God.
I'm just wary of considering the journey has ended. There is pretty-much a law, we can't see above our present view. Just as analogy. In 1900 physics thought it was done, all things explained and discovered. There were just 2 tiny problems left, black body radiation, the theory didn't explain experimental results, and the ether problem. Physicists thought some kind of medium was needed to transmit light, like sound needed air. But no matter how M-M measured the speed of light, they always came up with the same speed. Solving black body radiation required quantum mechanics and solving the problem of the speed of light required Relativity (later called Special Relativity). Nonduality solves all problems by saying, there are no problems to solve once there is Self-Realization. So, you are either a member of the club or you are not. Black body radiation and the speed of light are analogous cracks. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2022 13:29:34 GMT -5
No problem, any dialogue is appreciated. To each his own. I'm just exploring for mutual cracks. Exploring mutual cracks. I like that.
The reason why Reefs rejects my approach to spirituality is that I look for cracks in his picture of perfection. Reefs brand of spirituality is based on theism: the perfection of man symbolized by God.
Definitely not! He's pointing to something that the mind/intellect cannot grasp. The intellect only deals with images, ideas, and symbols--the known. The living truth is beyond anything that the mind can imagine. As Sailor Bob told a long-time seeker, "If mind could find the truth, you would already know it." Einstein once said, "I think 99 times and find nothing; I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me." He was describing the process of scientific inquiry that results in a eureka moment, but the same approach applies to existential questions. Here's the basic formula: 1. Clearly formulate whatever question seems important. Perhaps the question is, "What is the true nature of reality?" or "Is there such a thing as God?" 2. Think about the question; mull it over. 3. Relax and shift attention away from thoughts via some meditative activity such as listening to universal sound or listening to whatever ambient sounds are present. Even though the mind is now silent, the subconscious retains the question. IOW, what you actually ARE knows what wants to be known that images, ideas, and symbols cannot resolve. If the question is important, and if the intellect remains quiescent, sooner or later the answer will suddenly appear and there will be no doubt about what is realized. Some existential questions can be resolved in an hour or two of silence, but the heavy duty questions may require weeks, months, or years of silence. In the Zen tradition a handful of unique koans are given to people who are interested in enlightenment because the resolution of those questions will often cause the ordinary sense of reality to totally disintegrate. People to whom that occurs say that it's like being catapulted from a world where everything is dead and flat into a world that is vibrantly alive, unified, infinite, mysterious, and beyond intellectual comprehension. Pursuing existential questions is an attempt to access the vast intelligence that underlies everything and runs the whole show. That intelligence is what pumps blood through the body, grows every plant and animal, and looks out of every set of eyes. The intellect is like a tiny virtual reality-generating laptop computer, but the laptop is connected to a vast but hidden mainframe computer. Whether they know it or not, all spiritual seekers are searching for a way to access that mainframe. The three steps, above, describe how to do that. Believe it or not.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 14:34:31 GMT -5
Exploring mutual cracks. I like that.
The reason why Reefs rejects my approach to spirituality is that I look for cracks in his picture of perfection. Reefs brand of spirituality is based on theism: the perfection of man symbolized by God.
Definitely not! He's pointing to something that the mind/intellect cannot grasp. The intellect only deals with images, ideas, and symbols--the known. The living truth is beyond anything that the mind can imagine. As Sailor Bob told a long-time seeker, "If mind could find the truth, you would already know it." Einstein once said, "I think 99 times and find nothing; I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me." He was describing the process of scientific inquiry that results in a eureka moment, but the same approach applies to existential questions. Here's the basic formula: 1. Clearly formulate whatever question seems important. Perhaps the question is, "What is the true nature of reality?" or "Is there such a thing as God?" 2. Think about the question; mull it over. 3. Relax and shift attention away from thoughts via some meditative activity such as listening to universal sound or listening to whatever ambient sounds are present. Even though the mind is now silent, the subconscious retains the question. IOW, what you actually ARE knows what wants to be known that images, ideas, and symbols cannot resolve. If the question is important, and if the intellect remains quiescent, sooner or later the answer will suddenly appear and there will be no doubt about what is realized. Some existential questions can be resolved in an hour or two of silence, but the heavy duty questions may require weeks, months, or years of silence. In the Zen tradition a handful of unique koans are given to people who are interested in enlightenment because the resolution of those questions will often cause the ordinary sense of reality to totally disintegrate. People to whom that occurs say that it's like being catapulted from a world where everything is dead and flat into a world that is vibrantly alive, unified, infinite, mysterious, and beyond intellectual comprehension. Pursuing existential questions is an attempt to access the vast intelligence that underlies everything and runs the whole show. That intelligence is what pumps blood through the body, grows every plant and animal, and looks out of every set of eyes. The intellect is like a tiny virtual reality-generating laptop computer, but the laptop is connected to a vast but hidden mainframe computer. Whether they know it or not, all spiritual seekers are searching for a way to access that mainframe. The three steps, above, describe how to do that. Believe it or not.
Ok, I believe you, but just for carrying out an experiment to test your claim. What existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 14:52:04 GMT -5
Exploring mutual cracks. I like that.
The reason why Reefs rejects my approach to spirituality is that I look for cracks in his picture of perfection. Reefs brand of spirituality is based on theism: the perfection of man symbolized by God.
I'm just wary of considering the journey has ended. There is pretty-much a law, we can't see above our present view. Just as analogy. In 1900 physics thought it was done, all things explained and discovered. There were just 2 tiny problems left, black body radiation, the theory didn't explain experimental results, and the ether problem. Physicists thought some kind of medium was needed to transmit light, like sound needed air. But no matter how M-M measured the speed of light, they always came up with the same speed. Solving black body radiation required quantum mechanics and solving the problem of the speed of light required Relativity (later called Special Relativity). Nonduality solves all problems by saying, there are no problems to solve once there is Self-Realization. So, you are either a member of the club or you are not. Black body radiation and the speed of light are analogous cracks. To each his own. Would you consider this forum a club for nonduality aficionados? Is nonduality a pastime? Are we, as club members, akin to dog lovers, cat lovers, gun lovers, a community, within the greater world, with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 15:15:39 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** Why would they want answers that are wrong? If I have a recipe for chocolate cake and it is the wrong recipe, wouldn't the resulting mess wise me up?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2022 15:43:49 GMT -5
Definitely not! He's pointing to something that the mind/intellect cannot grasp. The intellect only deals with images, ideas, and symbols--the known. The living truth is beyond anything that the mind can imagine. As Sailor Bob told a long-time seeker, "If mind could find the truth, you would already know it." Einstein once said, "I think 99 times and find nothing; I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me." He was describing the process of scientific inquiry that results in a eureka moment, but the same approach applies to existential questions. Here's the basic formula: 1. Clearly formulate whatever question seems important. Perhaps the question is, "What is the true nature of reality?" or "Is there such a thing as God?" 2. Think about the question; mull it over. 3. Relax and shift attention away from thoughts via some meditative activity such as listening to universal sound or listening to whatever ambient sounds are present. Even though the mind is now silent, the subconscious retains the question. IOW, what you actually ARE knows what wants to be known that images, ideas, and symbols cannot resolve. If the question is important, and if the intellect remains quiescent, sooner or later the answer will suddenly appear and there will be no doubt about what is realized. Some existential questions can be resolved in an hour or two of silence, but the heavy duty questions may require weeks, months, or years of silence. In the Zen tradition a handful of unique koans are given to people who are interested in enlightenment because the resolution of those questions will often cause the ordinary sense of reality to totally disintegrate. People to whom that occurs say that it's like being catapulted from a world where everything is dead and flat into a world that is vibrantly alive, unified, infinite, mysterious, and beyond intellectual comprehension. Pursuing existential questions is an attempt to access the vast intelligence that underlies everything and runs the whole show. That intelligence is what pumps blood through the body, grows every plant and animal, and looks out of every set of eyes. The intellect is like a tiny virtual reality-generating laptop computer, but the laptop is connected to a vast but hidden mainframe computer. Whether they know it or not, all spiritual seekers are searching for a way to access that mainframe. The three steps, above, describe how to do that. Believe it or not.
Ok, I believe you, but just for carrying out an experiment to test your claim. What existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? 1. What could explain the observer paradoxes in physics? 2. What is a subatomic particle, really? 3. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? 4. What is time? There are probably some others, but those are ones that I clearly remember. There were dozens of other questions, but they were either formal koans or existential questions of a different kind. To be clear, although I was a scientist, I wasn't asking questions in the same way that scientists usually ask their questions. I wasn't interested in the "standard model" because I intuited that it was somehow flawed. I was interested in what's going on at a more fundamental level. Scientists are culturally conditioned to imagine reality in the same way as other humans, so they begin by accepting that the universe is an empty space filled with separate things being looked at by separate things. Very few of them ever question this basic assumption.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 18:51:59 GMT -5
I'm just wary of considering the journey has ended. There is pretty-much a law, we can't see above our present view. Just as analogy. In 1900 physics thought it was done, all things explained and discovered. There were just 2 tiny problems left, black body radiation, the theory didn't explain experimental results, and the ether problem. Physicists thought some kind of medium was needed to transmit light, like sound needed air. But no matter how M-M measured the speed of light, they always came up with the same speed. Solving black body radiation required quantum mechanics and solving the problem of the speed of light required Relativity (later called Special Relativity). Nonduality solves all problems by saying, there are no problems to solve once there is Self-Realization. So, you are either a member of the club or you are not. Black body radiation and the speed of light are analogous cracks. To each his own. Would you consider this forum a club for nonduality aficionados? Is nonduality a pastime? Are we, as club members, akin to dog lovers, cat lovers, gun lovers, a community, within the greater world, with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge? Club, metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2022 21:01:38 GMT -5
1) step 3 2) yes it sounds reasonable to me 3) also reasonable
4) it's precisely analysing their words (step 2), hence we get a sense that they say something valid prior taking to step 3. otherwise we just read nis and tolle as in step 1 5) hence step 3 6) I can cover all your points within the 3 step ontology. It's just you have discarded steps 1 and 2.
Analyzing their words is what I call pointer-licking. That's missing the point of the pointer. And the problem with your step 3 is that what is reasonable depends on what you think where you are going is like. But as a seeker, you have no idea where you are even going, let alone what it is like. You only know that where you are right now is not it. What you have though is a million ideas in your head about where you are going and what it is going to be like, based on travel books you've read or postcards you received from others. Ask yourself, can reasoning out the taste of honey give you the actual experience of the taste of honey? You see, you have to main flawed premises: 1) you think reason matters on matters that are beyond reason 2) you think realizing your timeless true nature is a process in time Basically, someone tells you there a thing called honey and says it's thick, golden and sweet - step 1 (some stop here)
They say the bees get nectar from flowers and collect in in a hive - and you figure, that makes sense - step 2 (some stop here)
You actually notice there are bees eating off the flowers - so you have insight; I see what he was saying now, and
one day you find a hive and taste the honey - step 3 (some don't stop)
To me personally there is a very refined balance point, and although it's not spectacular or anything, it's highly refined and subtle, and whereas most will say self-realisation, enlightenment etc is the ultimate, I claim everything is of mere consequence to that finest point of balance. It's very nuanced, so the slightest agitation is enough to distract you from it, so we only practice calm - the cessation of reactivity - even when very slight.
The majority of people are at a denser level of perception, and not sharp enough to notice the balance point in a really refined way, but it really doesn't matter or change anything. You just look into it as closely as possible without reacting to anything and subtler levels start to become revealed. Be that on a hard physical level or an extremely refined level, the practice is essentially the same.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 21:17:38 GMT -5
Would you consider this forum a club for nonduality aficionados? Is nonduality a pastime? Are we, as club members, akin to dog lovers, cat lovers, gun lovers, a community, within the greater world, with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge? Club, metaphor. I really wish I can get you guys to answer my questions directly. You were an electrician and you know which wire is hot. Is it possible to speak in simple terms about nonduality?
|
|