|
Post by Reefs on Sept 22, 2022 10:47:17 GMT -5
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This is my fulcrum. I really shouldn't reply yet as I don't have time to finish. I put you, Reefs, one rung ahead of ZD because you take into consideration alignment, ZD doesn't. I have always considered this a conflict between you and ZD, but I know the two of you don't. I understand ZD considers alignment irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with SR. ATST I understand why you consider it, period (but alignment still having nothing to do with SR). That's a beginning background for a further reply later (my today, your tomorrow). Basically, consider SR a kind of mountaintop, [looking around and down] seeing the Whole. But ZD seems to have realized ~we~ (nobody) can live there continually (I think I recall that was his last realization), it doesn't matter. So we have to come back down to the "valley" to live. For ZD it ends there. For Reefs, alignment enters the picture, as an aid to living in the valley (but still being irrelevant to SR, not effecting SR, what was realized in SR). So that sets the table for a further reply, which concerns the relationship between the "mountaintop" (SR) and living in the "valley". That's my essential concern and my fulcrum. {This will also speak to lolly's concerns, having read up the [then] end}. TBC... ZD talks about flow the same way I talk about alignment, and about sahaja samadhi the same way I talk about the natural state. Your mountain top analogy reveals a basic misunderstanding about SR. It would be an apt description if SR would be a state, the highest state. But SR is not a state. Realizing Self, seeing into your true nature, that can happen on the mountain top or in the valley. In fact, if you can see it only on the mountaintop but can't see it in the valley, like Satch, then it is basically worthless. This is about 3rd mountain, or the returning to the market place. ZD talked about that also.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 11:32:01 GMT -5
This is my fulcrum. I really shouldn't reply yet as I don't have time to finish. I put you, Reefs, one rung ahead of ZD because you take into consideration alignment, ZD doesn't. I have always considered this a conflict between you and ZD, but I know the two of you don't. I understand ZD considers alignment irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with SR. ATST I understand why you consider it, period (but alignment still having nothing to do with SR). That's a beginning background for a further reply later (my today, your tomorrow). Basically, consider SR a kind of mountaintop, [looking around and down] seeing the Whole. But ZD seems to have realized ~we~ (nobody) can live there continually (I think I recall that was his last realization), it doesn't matter. So we have to come back down to the "valley" to live. For ZD it ends there. For Reefs, alignment enters the picture, as an aid to living in the valley (but still being irrelevant to SR, not effecting SR, what was realized in SR). So that sets the table for a further reply, which concerns the relationship between the "mountaintop" (SR) and living in the "valley". That's my essential concern and my fulcrum. {This will also speak to lolly's concerns, having read up the [then] end}. TBC... ZD talks about flow the same way I talk about alignment, and about sahaja samadhi the same way I talk about the natural state. Your mountain top analogy reveals a basic misunderstanding about SR. It would be an apt description if SR would be a state, the highest state. But SR is not a state. Realizing Self, seeing into your true nature, that can happen on the mountain top or in the valley. In fact, if you can see it only on the mountaintop but can't see it in the valley, like Satch, then it is basically worthless. This is about 3rd mountain, or the returning to the market place. ZD talked about that also. Exactly. Whether we call it "alignment" or "flow" it's the same pointer. ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Just do it. Only go straight. Don't know. Put dharma gasoline in your gas tank. Put it all (your ideas) down." Remember the brick-laying guy who got into a brick-laying samadhi? He only started reflecting at the end of the day, but if he had understood the situation more deeply, he could have continued being one-with life by choosing not to reflect. Zen teachers advise their students to stop comparing, judging, and resisting whatever is happening. Everyone is in a state of flow, whether they know it or not, but consciously changing one's mental habits and psychologically "getting into" whatever one is doing will change one's life experiences significantly. In a sense, alignment or flow is a meditative activity because attention is constantly being shifted to "what is" rather than what one imagines. The Chinese farmer is a good example of not letting the intellect come to a static conclusion. There are other activities that similarly pay off in a relative sense and might be correlated with consequent insights. Help people who need help (without expecting anything in return), give away money to worthy causes, compliment people, smile, be kind, etc. In a way, it's a "fake it until you make it" type of thing. The final ox-herding picture is titled, "Entering the marketplace with helping hands." Even SR gets left behind by an authentic sage. The Buddha called it "The attainment of no-attainment."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2022 11:46:55 GMT -5
First paragraph = exactly. Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This is in reply to you last post, replied to here to keep my main point, the fulcrum. My main point wasn't the valley or the marketplace, it was the bold: "Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference". But I do keep forgetting if CC supersedes SR or if SR supersedes CC. This gets closer to my point, will you grant this, the following? You say, it doesn't matter if the false self doesn't disappear forever. Would you say that if the false self is present, that meaning, one is functioning through the false self, that meaning, one is operating through (the self-circuits)-conditioning, then one is not in flow or not in alignment? But TBC means I wasn't finished... TBC...but that answer will help.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 11:53:20 GMT -5
People who are stuck in the intellect won't like the answers to existential questions provided by sages because they have no reference for them. The observer paradox occurs in physics, anthropology, and other sciences. It appears to be a paradox because scientists imagine that they're separate from what they observe, but this is an illusion. The observer and the observed are the same unified field of being. This means that they're always looking at themselves. It's the intellect that makes them imagine a universe divided into separate states. What is a subatomic particle? It's an idea, only, a way of imagining how to explain the structure of matter and various phenomena. At first, scientists thought matter was composed of atoms which were composed of smaller particles, but then those smaller particles appeared to be composed of yet smaller particles, etc. It's like a dog chasing its own tail without knowing it. They built bigger accelerators and then had to imagine yet smaller particles (quarks) with odd qualities (charm), etc. Today, we have books with titles like "The Matter Myth" because some scientists have begun to realize what's going on. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? It didn't; the whole thing "is alive, Igor; it's alive." What is time? It's a cognitive grid, just like lines of latitude and longitude. It's a totally imaginary concept. In truth, there is only now.. Make no mistake, imagination is useful and extremely powerful as a survival tool. It allowed early humans to imagine how to trap and kill large animals. It allows architects to design spaces that can be walked through and looked at in the mind's eye before they're constructed. In short, it's a great gift, but that gift is both a blessing and a curse. It's a curse when humans do not realize the difference between what is actual and what is imaginary. What a tree IS is actual whereas the image/idea/symbol "tree" is imaginary. The greatest tragedy is that humans rarely discover the living truth because they're culturally conditioned to spend 99% of their time imagining. This is why they don't know what they are, what's going on, or why they feel alienated. You know what? I do agree with your assertions; however, scientists (including you) do not imagine that they are separate from what they observe. The separation is an actuality, as actual as the fact that they are human beings living on planet earth. The actuality of separation is caused by perception. There are tons of theories published by scientists/academics refuting that separation but none is convincing. Case in point: Bernardo Kastrup, who worked at CERN. He rejects the separation and posits what you have asserted. His theory debunking the objective reality of materialism has gained no traction. All sages perceive themselves as people and not trees or rocks. Therein lies the separation. Living one way and preaching another way is disgusting to me.
One of you guys said that only nutjobs don't see themselves as human beings living on planet earth. And all of you concurred in silence. If that is the case, then stop discussing nonduality bs in this forum. If you folks are human beings and not planet earth, that is the separation. Then, there is the car you drive, the computer you use to discuss nonduality with other non-nutjobs, the food you shove in your mouths, the wives you yell at. They are all separate from you.
Look, I understand why you people gather to converse on nonduality and disdain the intellect as though you have a special "prior to concept" power of perception at your disposal to transcend the mundane world of scientists and folks like Gopal and sree. And you huddle together for warmth and comfort. I get that. My grandma huddled with Catholics all her life. She was a good woman and I loved her as much as she loved me. I think she loved me more. Like you folks,she also believed she had a special power, in Jesus, the Savior. Your special power is in nonduality, the holy grail of western spirituality.
My grandma is dead but you are not. Also, you folks come across as smarter than scientists and professors of physics at the top schools in the US. This is why I have been trying to shove my brand of spirituality in your faces. Reefs don't like it and said it is toxic. I was hoping that at least one of you would check it out. The separation between "the observer and the observed" (Krishnamurti) is indeed an illusion. Krishnamurti, apparently, could live it but couldn't explain it. You guys are just saying it but cannot live in that state of oneness. Using the intellect, I can explain the illusion. It is not a bad thing but a marvelous feature of the wholeness of life.
In many ways what you posted here is valid because there are two sides to every coin. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes and no, but on a ND forum the writing is an attempt, via pointers, to deprogram peoples' attachment to the consensus paradigm. The most comprehensive writing with this objective is Chapter 26 of the Ribhu Gita, but most of us are pointing to the same thing in our own way. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes, in the sense that separateness and boundaries can be imagined, but no from the standpoint of the living truth and what is actual. This is why many of us suggest that people search for actual boundaries. I agree with you about Krishnamurti, and that's why I quit recommending his books to people. I never met anyone who got free as a result of listening to him or reading his stuff. Be careful, however, about jumping to conclusions about someone who you don't personally know. You would need to spend time with someone, watch how they interact with people, listen to what they say in everyday situations, consider how they respond to probing questions, etc. to adequately discern what they've realized and whether or not they "walk the talk."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 12:02:09 GMT -5
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This is in reply to you last post, replied to here to keep my main point, the fulcrum. My main point wasn't the valley or the marketplace, it was the bold: "Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference". But I do keep forgetting if CC supersedes SR or if SR supersedes CC. But TBC means I wasn't finished... TBC... Scott Kiloby stated the situation fairly well in the quote I posted some time ago. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "even if the thought of selfhood arises after realization, it is empty because it's no longer understood as something actual."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2022 12:14:29 GMT -5
This is in reply to you last post, replied to here to keep my main point, the fulcrum. My main point wasn't the valley or the marketplace, it was the bold: "Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference". But I do keep forgetting if CC supersedes SR or if SR supersedes CC. But TBC means I wasn't finished... TBC... Scott Kiloby stated the situation fairly well in the quote I posted some time ago. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "even if the thought of selfhood arises after realization, it is empty because it's no longer understood as something actual." Thanks. After you started your reply here I edited and added to my post. Your reply speaks somewhat to that, but I don't just mean just a thought of selfhood. If the self-circuits-of-conditioning still exist after SR, and everything you and Reefs have said seem to indicate they still exist, Reefs said it doesn't matter if they completely disappear or not, does the mind-body-person-aspect of the Whole ever function through those self-circuits? (I'm making the distinction Gary Weber makes, self-conditioning and ordinary information conditioning, AKA learning). If you answered the edited post above, no need to reply again, but you may not have seen the edited version. An answer on this, and from Reefs also, would be majorly appreciated, would be most helpful.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2022 12:36:47 GMT -5
So, what existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? I would like Reefs to help you out here because he also disses the intellect. Have you guys figured out what time is? Scientists have no issue with time. They can measure it with atomic clocks and have developed the GPS which locates you for a drone strike.
People who are stuck in the intellect won't like the answers to existential questions provided by sages because they have no reference for them. The observer paradox occurs in physics, anthropology, and other sciences. It appears to be a paradox because scientists imagine that they're separate from what they observe, but this is an illusion. The observer and the observed are the same unified field of being. This means that they're always looking at themselves. It's the intellect that makes them imagine a universe divided into separate states. What is a subatomic particle? It's an idea, only, a way of imagining how to explain the structure of matter and various phenomena. At first, scientists thought matter was composed of atoms which were composed of smaller particles, but then those smaller particles appeared to be composed of yet smaller particles, etc. It's like a dog chasing its own tail without knowing it. They built bigger accelerators and then had to imagine yet smaller particles (quarks) with odd qualities (charm), etc. Today, we have books with titles like "The Matter Myth" because some scientists have begun to realize what's going on. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? It didn't; the whole thing "is alive, Igor; it's alive." What is time? It's a cognitive grid, just like lines of latitude and longitude. It's a totally imaginary concept. In truth, there is only now.. Make no mistake, imagination is useful and extremely powerful as a survival tool. It allowed early humans to imagine how to trap and kill large animals. It allows architects to design spaces that can be walked through and looked at in the mind's eye before they're constructed. In short, it's a great gift, but that gift is both a blessing and a curse. It's a curse when humans do not realize the difference between what is actual and what is imaginary. What a tree IS is actual whereas the image/idea/symbol "tree" is imaginary. The greatest tragedy is that humans rarely discover the living truth because they're culturally conditioned to spend 99% of their time imagining. This is why they don't know what they are, what's going on, or why they feel alienated. A distinction has to be made between imagination as fantasy and imagination as cognition via visualization. Einstein could never have imagined a unicorn into existence but he did originate (Special) Relativity by imagining what it would be like to ride upon a beam of light. The first is not functional, the second is.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 22, 2022 12:54:28 GMT -5
You know what? I do agree with your assertions; however, scientists (including you) do not imagine that they are separate from what they observe. The separation is an actuality, as actual as the fact that they are human beings living on planet earth. The actuality of separation is caused by perception. There are tons of theories published by scientists/academics refuting that separation but none is convincing. Case in point: Bernardo Kastrup, who worked at CERN. He rejects the separation and posits what you have asserted. His theory debunking the objective reality of materialism has gained no traction. All sages perceive themselves as people and not trees or rocks. Therein lies the separation. Living one way and preaching another way is disgusting to me.
One of you guys said that only nutjobs don't see themselves as human beings living on planet earth. And all of you concurred in silence. If that is the case, then stop discussing nonduality bs in this forum. If you folks are human beings and not planet earth, that is the separation. Then, there is the car you drive, the computer you use to discuss nonduality with other non-nutjobs, the food you shove in your mouths, the wives you yell at. They are all separate from you.
Look, I understand why you people gather to converse on nonduality and disdain the intellect as though you have a special "prior to concept" power of perception at your disposal to transcend the mundane world of scientists and folks like Gopal and sree. And you huddle together for warmth and comfort. I get that. My grandma huddled with Catholics all her life. She was a good woman and I loved her as much as she loved me. I think she loved me more. Like you folks,she also believed she had a special power, in Jesus, the Savior. Your special power is in nonduality, the holy grail of western spirituality.
My grandma is dead but you are not. Also, you folks come across as smarter than scientists and professors of physics at the top schools in the US. This is why I have been trying to shove my brand of spirituality in your faces. Reefs don't like it and said it is toxic. I was hoping that at least one of you would check it out. The separation between "the observer and the observed" (Krishnamurti) is indeed an illusion. Krishnamurti, apparently, could live it but couldn't explain it. You guys are just saying it but cannot live in that state of oneness. Using the intellect, I can explain the illusion. It is not a bad thing but a marvelous feature of the wholeness of life.
In many ways what you posted here is valid because there are two sides to every coin. Are there such things as individual human beings ? Yes and no, but on a ND forum the writing is an attempt, via pointers, to deprogram peoples' attachment to the consensus paradigm. The most comprehensive writing with this objective is Chapter 26 of the Ribhu Gita, but most of us are pointing to the same thing in our own way. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes, in the sense that separateness and boundaries can be imagined, but no from the standpoint of the living truth and what is actual. This is why many of us suggest that people search for actual boundaries. I agree with you about Krishnamurti, and that's why I quit recommending his books to people. I never met anyone who got free as a result of listening to him or reading his stuff. Be careful, however, about jumping to conclusions about someone who you don't personally know. You would need to spend time with someone, watch how they interact with people, listen to what they say in everyday situations, consider how they respond to probing questions, etc. to adequately discern what they've realized and whether or not they "walk the talk." I guess I must have written my post in Tamil and you read it in English without getting anything from what I wanted to convey from Tamil Nadu. Talk about a cultural barrier. It's not your fault. I was beaming to you from that other shore.
Truth, in India, is neither a two-sided coin nor anything in between. It is either black or white, up or down, man or woman. The western perception of truth, however, is a matter of opinion.
Thus, nonduality is a two truths act: one for the self-realized nutjob in the "prior to concept" trance, and the other when he is back on planet earth as a human being.
All is not lost. You and I won't have any difficulty communicating when picking out what to eat at MacDonald's.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 13:39:21 GMT -5
Scott Kiloby stated the situation fairly well in the quote I posted some time ago. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something like, "even if the thought of selfhood arises after realization, it is empty because it's no longer understood as something actual." Thanks. After you started your reply here I edited and added to my post. Your reply speaks somewhat to that, but I don't just mean just a thought of selfhood. If the self-circuits-of-conditioning still exist after SR, and everything you and Reefs have said seem to indicate they still exist, Reefs said it doesn't matter if they completely disappear or not, does the mind-body-person-aspect of the Whole ever function through those self-circuits? (I'm making the distinction Gary Weber makes, self-conditioning and ordinary information conditioning, AKA learning). If you answered the edited post above, no need to reply again, but you may not have seen the edited version. An answer on this, and from Reefs also, would be majorly appreciated, would be most helpful. Sages certainly respond to their names when called, and their preferences, tastes, skillsets, general knowledge, and personalities also generally remain the same. All of the usual distinctions that humans make between childhood and adulthood are all internalized in the subconscious, so that's why mental chatter is unnecessary, but this applies to any adult and not just sages. The main differences I can see are (1) a primary focus on what's happening in the present moment (very little, if any, self-referential reflection about the past or fantasization about the future), (2) detachment from judgmental thinking, (3) a sense of flow or oneness with whatever is happening, (4) a sense of emotional freedom, (5) no roller coaster of good and bad experiences (more like a steady state of equanimity), (6) a sense of psychological unity, (7) no second-guessing of oneself, (8) acceptance of reality as it is without thinking it ought to be different than it is, (9) flexibility and looseness (a willingness to go with the flow and change direction if circumstances change), (10 independence (they don't care what other people think because they know what they are in an absolute sense), and (11) a desire to share what's been discovered with others. Reefs might want to add to this list. I guess the primary difference between sages and most adults is that they don't live in their heads because their realizations and understanding have become embodied.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 13:48:08 GMT -5
In many ways what you posted here is valid because there are two sides to every coin. Are there such things as individual human beings ? Yes and no, but on a ND forum the writing is an attempt, via pointers, to deprogram peoples' attachment to the consensus paradigm. The most comprehensive writing with this objective is Chapter 26 of the Ribhu Gita, but most of us are pointing to the same thing in our own way. Are there such things as individual human beings? Yes, in the sense that separateness and boundaries can be imagined, but no from the standpoint of the living truth and what is actual. This is why many of us suggest that people search for actual boundaries. I agree with you about Krishnamurti, and that's why I quit recommending his books to people. I never met anyone who got free as a result of listening to him or reading his stuff. Be careful, however, about jumping to conclusions about someone who you don't personally know. You would need to spend time with someone, watch how they interact with people, listen to what they say in everyday situations, consider how they respond to probing questions, etc. to adequately discern what they've realized and whether or not they "walk the talk." I guess I must have written my post in Tamil and you read it in English without getting anything from what I wanted to convey from Tamil Nadu. Talk about a cultural barrier. It's not your fault. I was beaming to you from that other shore.
Truth, in India, is neither a two-sided coin nor anything in between. It is either black or white, up or down, man or woman. The western perception of truth, however, is a matter of opinion.
Thus, nonduality is a two truths act: one for the self-realized nutjob in the "prior to concept" trance, and the other when he is back on planet earth as a human being.
All is not lost. You and I won't have any difficulty communicating when picking out what to eat at MacDonald's.
Haha! Even in crazy western logic classes they teach about "the fallacy of black and white."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2022 14:26:38 GMT -5
This is my fulcrum. I really shouldn't reply yet as I don't have time to finish. I put you, Reefs, one rung ahead of ZD because you take into consideration alignment, ZD doesn't. I have always considered this a conflict between you and ZD, but I know the two of you don't. I understand ZD considers alignment irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with SR. ATST I understand why you consider it, period (but alignment still having nothing to do with SR). That's a beginning background for a further reply later (my today, your tomorrow). Basically, consider SR a kind of mountaintop, [looking around and down] seeing the Whole. But ZD seems to have realized ~we~ (nobody) can live there continually (I think I recall that was his last realization), it doesn't matter. So we have to come back down to the "valley" to live. For ZD it ends there. For Reefs, alignment enters the picture, as an aid to living in the valley (but still being irrelevant to SR, not effecting SR, what was realized in SR). So that sets the table for a further reply, which concerns the relationship between the "mountaintop" (SR) and living in the "valley". That's my essential concern and my fulcrum. {This will also speak to lolly's concerns, having read up the [then] end}. TBC... ZD talks about flow the same way I talk about alignment, and about sahaja samadhi the same way I talk about the natural state. Your mountain top analogy reveals a basic misunderstanding about SR. It would be an apt description if SR would be a state, the highest state. But SR is not a state. Realizing Self, seeing into your true nature, that can happen on the mountain top or in the valley. In fact, if you can see it only on the mountaintop but can't see it in the valley, like Satch, then it is basically worthless. This is about 3rd mountain, or the returning to the market place. ZD talked about that also. I followed through with a couple more questions, elaborations. ZD answered. I'll wait to further reply until I hear from you on those additional questions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2022 15:25:55 GMT -5
How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? It didn't; the whole thing "is alive, Igor; it's alive." that one never gets old ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2022 15:30:13 GMT -5
Tolle makes it clear, quite explicitly that he's not addressing rational mind, and many people find him quite unreasonable. I think i people discern it's unreasonable then they'd have to point out some glaring contradictions, otherwise there's no reason to discern it unreasonable, but if it stacks up and no part outright defeats another, then one has to accept the possibility that it might have some actual merit. Sometimes people are clinging to their preconceived notions and simply react when that's confronted, so you have to revert to pure reason to overcome such strong bias. Otherwise it might be a style issue, which is why I'm not a fan, but still, distaste for style is irrelevant to the consistency of the content or lack thereof.
Tolle's definition of madness is the common state of humanity. Is that reasonable? I could skim through for other examples if you're interested. And it's not that I disagree with Tolle's point there, just that I wouldn't try to defend it in an intellectual debate as reasonable. Self-consistency is a very poor measure of reason. Would you like me to illustrate? Perhaps we could say that self-consistency might be a necessary condition for a thought process to be reasonable, but not sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2022 15:32:18 GMT -5
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. Well it gets complicated because not only are people suffering due to reactivity toward current circumstance, but they have been traumatised and have old gunk remaining from the past, including that which they are not yet stable minded enough to endure without losing the plot, so I'm not sure what 'alignment is' as I am unfamiliar with that terminology, but I know how clearing the old blocks opens the heart, if I may generalise using figure of speech.
Since self realisation is here defined as recognising the false self as false, then I'm going to have to say such a recognition is an outcome of meditation. Essentially, if you relentlessly cease to fuel the ego with reactivity, it will ultimately be revealed, and you'll be like, 'that's what has been pretending to me' and/or 'I can't believe I've been living as that'. Even then, it can, I think usually does, take a bit of persistence to become established...
That is of the things that happens with regard to self or existence. There is another which is like space opens up all around, and another where you directly contact like - "I am that" . It's more like 'that is the truth of my nature' - and it's weird. Then there's the balance point I mentioned, which has nothing to do with the more 'I am' related things, but I consider it the ultimate, even though its a bit of a nothing burger.
I translate what I understand by what reefs means by alignment to what you write about the absence of reactivity. It's not a one-to-one direct translation, but isn't that often the case between different languages?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2022 15:47:22 GMT -5
First paragraph = exactly. Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This can be qualified, because to someone who has convinced themselves that they're SR, but is really just spiritually bypassing, this can be quite significant, as in, a hint for them they are in that situation. Of course, now, cue the "angry enlightened dude" endless talk talk.
|
|