|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 18, 2022 13:40:58 GMT -5
evidence is in the realm of measurements but I've already said twice that if you have questions about mountains you should climb one Are you at all familiar with the Buddhist concept of emptiness? From my casual knowledge of the subject, a Vedanta teacher will invite the student to consider the ephemeral nature of what appears to them. How everything you perceive is always in a state of flux, even perceptions like a metal fixture that can cut your leg, and that seem quite stable. I find it fascinating how modern science eventually corroborated an ancient spiritual approach to reality. Would you consider yourself a material realist? Buddhism in relation to Vedanta is a curious phenomenon. Buddha did not get too much into metaphysics, he said I'm only interested in freeing the person, and for that, getting into the weeds is not necessary (a paraphrase). Buddhism says there are no independent things, none. Things are because of other things. This is emptiness, dependent origination. Buddhism says there is no permanent foundation. This is very nearly like AN Whitehead's process philosophy, btw. But there is an underlying somenothing in some sense, everything has Buddha Nature (at least all sentient beings). But Advaita Vedanta says yes, everything is Brahman. So there is a permanent somenothing. Curious. So, basically, Buddhism is like quantum physics, Vedanta is like Relativity, neither can be understood in terms of the other. And...I have 20 minutes, as Italy plays Belgium at 3:00, Women's Euro.  [Go England!] |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2022 13:48:04 GMT -5
Are you at all familiar with the Buddhist concept of emptiness? From my casual knowledge of the subject, a Vedanta teacher will invite the student to consider the ephemeral nature of what appears to them. How everything you perceive is always in a state of flux, even perceptions like a metal fixture that can cut your leg, and that seem quite stable. I find it fascinating how modern science eventually corroborated an ancient spiritual approach to reality. Would you consider yourself a material realist? Buddhism in relation to Vedanta is a curious phenomenon. Buddha did not get too much into metaphysics, he said I'm only interested in freeing the person, and for that, getting into the weeds is not necessary (a paraphrase). Buddhism says there are no independent things, none. Things are because of other things. This is emptiness, dependent origination. Buddhism says there is no permanent foundation. This is very nearly like AN Whitehead's process philosophy, btw. But there is an underlying somenothing in some sense, everything has Buddha Nature (at least all sentient beings). But Advaita Vedanta says yes, everything is Brahman. So there is a permanent somenothing. Curious. So, basically, Buddhism is like quantum physics, Vedanta is like Relativity, neither can be understood in terms of the other. And...I have 20 minutes, as Italy plays Belgium at 3:00, Women's Euro. [Go England!] Wasn't suggesting a comparison, certainly not in intellectual terms, just referring to them to establish the common notion between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 18, 2022 13:53:33 GMT -5
Buddhism in relation to Vedanta is a curious phenomenon. Buddha did not get too much into metaphysics, he said I'm only interested in freeing the person, and for that, getting into the weeds is not necessary (a paraphrase). Buddhism says there are no independent things, none. Things are because of other things. This is emptiness, dependent origination. Buddhism says there is no permanent foundation. This is very nearly like AN Whitehead's process philosophy, btw. But there is an underlying somenothing in some sense, everything has Buddha Nature (at least all sentient beings). But Advaita Vedanta says yes, everything is Brahman. So there is a permanent somenothing. Curious. So, basically, Buddhism is like quantum physics, Vedanta is like Relativity, neither can be understood in terms of the other. And...I have 20 minutes, as Italy plays Belgium at 3:00, Women's Euro. [Go England!] Wasn't suggesting a comparison, certainly not in intellectual terms, just referring to them to establish the common notion between the two. Oh...I know, I was just kind of adding....on... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 20, 2022 7:27:47 GMT -5
The crux of SR/TR and what gives rise to phenomena/appearances, and why we point to realization rather than 'experience' for the timeless (when/NOW) / non-local (where/HERE). The questioning of the crux leads one into the formulations of the mind, usually riddled with self-referential cross wiring (via memory) that give rise to the bird nest of identity and its story. The latter is what gives rise to the naysaying and stepping in to poo poo the pointing, and getting all bent up and butt hurt. Unquestioningly following the latter into the story of the self-referential mind and feeling the weight of its gravitational pull is like wading out into the river of relative delusion where the mind takes greater degrees of control (again). A guy named Enigma used to talk about it like this. There's always a choice in the endeavor, though: toward clarity or toward insanity. Interestingly, most of the peeps you meet on the street would likely think we're insane and/or babbling idiots, not realizing they are completely asleep, and unconsciously movie-dreaming a separate identity. You know what they say about waking a sleep walker, and it tends to happen at times when one arrives on this message board.  The sleep walker is akin to being caught up in the momentous current of the raging river, while being awake is walking on water. -Love Is All- "TR" as some kind of description.. makes no sense truth is such an ambiguous word I don't know why people use it or to try and wield it like a club is even worse (not suggesting you were) (edited in the disclaimer since as we all know a reader will take something personally if given the chance ) Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2022 8:09:37 GMT -5
"TR" as some kind of description.. makes no sense truth is such an ambiguous word I don't know why people use it or to try and wield it like a club is even worse (not suggesting you were) (edited in the disclaimer since as we all know a reader will take something personally if given the chance ) Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 I guess I can see where the link goes just from this screen If an organism needs something, and if it's available, it just takes it. For example if you needed an atom of nitrogen to complete some chemical process.. you'd just pluck one out of the air. And ol Billy boy might have used that same atom himself for something back in his time. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 20, 2022 8:17:44 GMT -5
Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 I guess I can see where the link goes just from this screen If an organism needs something, and if it's available, it just takes it. For example if you needed an atom of nitrogen to complete some chemical process.. you'd just pluck one out of the air. And ol Billy boy might have used that same atom himself for something back in his time. 💡 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 20, 2022 10:21:52 GMT -5
"TR" as some kind of description.. makes no sense truth is such an ambiguous word I don't know why people use it or to try and wield it like a club is even worse (not suggesting you were) (edited in the disclaimer since as we all know a reader will take something personally if given the chance ) Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 I think the treachery of truth is why E' invented WIBIGO and the amusing giraffe allegory. There are no facts to come to the aide of anyone out at the existential perimeter, .. look not for comfort not for reference nor for home .. no rules, neither hard nor fast nor of thumb. But this state can trigger and hook various emotional movements, and those can out and out blind. From what I've heard of traditional Advaita Vedanta they actually start with just getting people to settle their minds down, as a quiet mind is a much better state to approach that perimeter, and so that starting gate involves a measure of objectivity. The witnessing state is one of complete non-reactivity to the objects of mind, and it seems to me that Zen has evolved a very sophisticated culture of completely short-circuiting the entire affair of mind. And I think the parable of Jesus and the coin is as deep water as finger/moon or "beginner's mind". Seems to me that there may be ways of avoiding payment of Caesar's taxes, but those are unique, narrow and not very well traveled roads. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 20, 2022 10:37:32 GMT -5
Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 I guess I can see where the link goes just from this screen If an organism needs something, and if it's available, it just takes it. For example if you needed an atom of nitrogen to complete some chemical process.. you'd just pluck one out of the air. And ol Billy boy might have used that same atom himself for something back in his time. Pop fact. It's been suggested that in all probability the number of atoms in each of our bodies that once 'belonged to' Shakespeare ... numbers in the billions. edit -Ah, I just saw that was the link, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 20, 2022 13:39:37 GMT -5
"TR" as some kind of description.. makes no sense truth is such an ambiguous word I don't know why people use it or to try and wield it like a club is even worse (not suggesting you were) (edited in the disclaimer since as we all know a reader will take something personally if given the chance ) Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 Yes, that's me (that's all of us). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 20, 2022 13:43:00 GMT -5
Yeah, Truth (cap T) is meant to offset it from the concensus paradigm 'truth', which is a matter of perceptions/facts. I see the latter playing out in politics in quite interesting ways, so I guess we'll see where that goes. I only distinguish SR & TR to consider the 'psychological death' as juxtaposed to the 'appearances' stuff we sometimes get into the weeds about when talking about mind, physical reality and the like. It might be considered as where spirituality meets physics, or something to that effect, if one looks at the data driven science (mind stuff) exploring the atomic levels. This article kind of gives some hint hint wink winks for the exploration. And this one is especially for SDP because they talk about his namesake! All those 'physical objects' pinging the mind, giving illusive substance to the delineations between mind-body and the rest of the universe. But yeah, essentially, they both are pointing at the same non-thing, but once SR happens (if ever), it can be quite confusing when grappling with the conditioned mindset tinkering with physical <ahem> reality. As such, we end up getting into Doofus Guy arguments and the proverbial food fights get heated. Pretty beautiful dreamstuff from HERE. 🍿 I guess I can see where the link goes just from this screen If an organism needs something, and if it's available, it just takes it. For example if you needed an atom of nitrogen to complete some chemical process.. you'd just pluck one out of the air. And ol Billy boy might have used that same atom himself for something back in his time. Air is easier to nail down. I read once that at any particular time, even right now, we have at least one molecule of air that had been in everyone who had ever lived, in their lungs. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 22, 2022 7:17:17 GMT -5
Is that what you have realised to what you are being not? The thing is, you can only say you have realised what you are not when you have realised what you are .And when this is so, one will understand that there isn't anything that you are not . This is why I say, there is only what you are . We need to sort this out. I know what you mean logically. Logic won't work here.
I realize I am not a human being. This in no way is a realization of what I am.
Let's put it another way. I realize I am not an American. The nation was invented from nothing on July 4, 1776.
How did you realise what you are not? What happened that gave you the realsation of that which doesn't reflect the realisation of what you are? I hear it often when peeps tick off the checklist of I am not this and I am not that . Trying to weed out the illusions and the falsities to be left with something that was present in the weeds all along but too blind to see at the time . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 4, 2022 13:32:11 GMT -5
I appreciate that distinction, in my words, I would say that 'facts' are associated with, or belong within, a particular context, not all contexts are necessarily associated with facts. I also understand the bolded. If 'boatman' isn't the equivalent of 'ego', then I'm not much wiser on what a boatman is. Is it best if I read the Chuangtze story to find out? Hey, mine is a western mind too. But that doesn't mean that I am locked into that mindset and can never switch off its auto-pilot mode. I don't want to get rid of it even if there is a way. Whatever for? I quite prefer it to the Chinese mindset or Gopal's India mindset.
The problem with a mindset is that it is set! It makes a robot out of you: a human being living on planet earth. It would be great if life were perfect and utopian. As is, life is a mess. Jane Fonda has just announced that she has cancer but it is great for her - she said - because she has good health insurance and has access to good doctors. She said good health insurance is important for everyone. I think everyone should also have $200 million which is Jane's net worth. Most Americans have zilch. In my opinion, spirituality must free us from the mess of a world we are caught in. Our auto-pilot mindsets is created by science (rational thought). Spirituality has to enable us to go manual to fix the mess.
Spirituality doesn't try to fix the world. Tao Te Ching: 29. Ambition Those who wish to change the world According with their desire Cannot succeed. The world is shaped by the Way; It cannot be shaped by the self. Trying to change it, you damage it; Trying to possess it, you lose it. So some will lead, while others follow. Some will be warm, others cold Some will be strong, others weak. Some will get where they are going While others fall by the side of the road. So the sage will be neither wasteful nor violent. 30. Violence Powerful men are well advised not to use violence, For violence has a habit of returning; Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes, And lean years follow a great war. A general is well advised To achieve nothing more than his orders: Not to take advantage of his victory. Nor to glory, boast or pride himself; To do what is dictated by necessity, But not by choice. For even the strongest force will weaken with time, And then its violence will return, and kill it. 16. Decay and Renewal Empty the self completely; Embrace perfect peace. The world will rise and move; Watch it return to rest. All the flourishing things Will return to their source. This return is peaceful; It is the flow of nature, An eternal decay and renewal. Accepting this brings enlightenment, Ignoring this brings misery. Who accepts nature's flow becomes all-cherishing; Being all-cherishing he becomes impartial; Being impartial he becomes magnanimous; Being magnanimous he becomes natural; Being natural he becomes one with the Way; Being one with the Way he becomes immortal: Though his body will decay, the Way will not. The GNL Tao De Ching. Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 Peter A. Merel. Caveat This document attempts to draw the texts of several popular English translations of Lao Tse into a consistent and accessible context. It is based on the translations of Robert G. Henricks, Lin Yutang, D.C. Lau, Ch'u Ta-Kao, Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English, Richard Wilhelm and Aleister Crowley. This work is not a translation, but an interpolation. It does not represent the original text; the original, if there was an original, has been jumbled, mistranscribed and reinterpreted many times over many thousands of years, and is here cast into a language that is incapable of presenting its poetic structure and philological connections. Even an original text, translated as faithfully as possible, might remain inaccessible to the modern reader unable to place it within its original context. The intention of this work is to construct a document that closely corresponds with the best modern translations of Lao Tse, but which is blunt, easy and useful to read within a modern context. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2022 19:42:35 GMT -5
Yes, it occurred to me after having written that - your meaning of "reasonable" is that a person would agree with the statement in subjective terms. "Reasonable" .. to them. Going deeper and relating it to this it would mean something like: "now that I've tasted honey it is reasonable to me to say that it is sweet". I took "reasonable" to mean something different - more along the conventional meaning of the word - as I'm sure you can infer at this point from context. To be clear, you're referring to what I wrote about reason as it relates to self-consistency? It's just that the 3 part ontological model should be imagined as 3 general aspects rather than 3 chronological steps, because during the same time as the teacher speaks or Tolle is read or whatever, all 3 aspects can occur concurrently. At times you hear bits and they don't 'fit in' so those bits remain at step 1. Other bits are heard and you see how they 'join the dots', yet they have no subjective reference and remain at step 2. Other parts are seen like, 'Yup, that happens to me,' and immediately hit step 3. Over time the aspects that remained at step one start to fall into place. You have some insight, and realise, that thing Tolle said fits in with this, so it moves within reason step two, and might soon be seen - where it falls into step 3. There is no set way the ontology plays out, so best imagine it as a single thing what has been broken into general categories for the sake of philosophical explanation. When I was taught this ontological model it came with the following parable: A mother loved her son and made his favorite rice pudding, but the child was wailing, 'It has black stones in it,' and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained, 'It's not stones. They are cardamon seeds that give the pudding a great flavour'. The child didn't understand and kept crying 'black stones black stones'. The mother figured the kid doesn't understand cardamon, so she picked them out and the child ate up the rest. Of course there came a time when the child grew older and understood cardamon, and was glad the little black seeds were included in his pudding. We were told the 'dhamma' is like that. There are bits you don't like and don't understand and don't make sense, so push them to the side and enjoy the rest. Later on you'll see the side bits are good, and then you can accept them too. If not, don't accept it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2022 23:59:47 GMT -5
It's just that the 3 part ontological model should be imagined as 3 general aspects rather than 3 chronological steps, because during the same time as the teacher speaks or Tolle is read or whatever, all 3 aspects can occur concurrently. At times you hear bits and they don't 'fit in' so those bits remain at step 1. Other bits are heard and you see how they 'join the dots', yet they have no subjective reference and remain at step 2. Other parts are seen like, 'Yup, that happens to me,' and immediately hit step 3. Over time the aspects that remained at step one start to fall into place. You have some insight, and realise, that thing Tolle said fits in with this, so it moves within reason step two, and might soon be seen - where it falls into step 3. There is no set way the ontology plays out, so best imagine it as a single thing what has been broken into general categories for the sake of philosophical explanation. When I was taught this ontological model it came with the following parable: A mother loved her son and made his favorite rice pudding, but the child was wailing, 'It has black stones in it,' and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained, 'It's not stones. They are cardamon seeds that give the pudding a great flavour'. The child didn't understand and kept crying 'black stones black stones'. The mother figured the kid doesn't understand cardamon, so she picked them out and the child ate up the rest. Of course there came a time when the child grew older and understood cardamon, and was glad the little black seeds were included in his pudding. We were told the 'dhamma' is like that. There are bits you don't like and don't understand and don't make sense, so push them to the side and enjoy the rest. Later on you'll see the side bits are good, and then you can accept them too. If not, don't accept it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason. Consistency is the only viable assessment of reason in the step 2 category, and contradiction is it breakdown (it's basically an if-then thing), but since that pertains only to intellectual analysis, the step 3 of see for yourself is necessary for a complete ontology. I think you're preaching to the choir there.
Say you hear someone like Ramana, Nis or Tolle tell you about something, and they same the same sorts of things, so you figure, Meh, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Then you actually undertake a practice of self-inquiry. They wouldn't start the inquiry unless they first heard (1), and thought it through (2), and based on their intellectual understanding of it, did the inquiry to find out for themselves. Not that there's a necessary chronology per se. Just that categorising it this way provides a complete ontological model. It means you can't just read 'I am That' and presto. You can't debate, discuss and understand and hey-presto. You can do that to form a 'roadmap', buy unless to go have a look... you're kinda like Mary's Room. I have had experiences no one has written down or talked about, so then it goes in reverse. I'm like, Whoa, what's that (3) then rationalise a format (2) in which I say it (1).
I can't seem to illustrate it better than that ^
Yes constant or at least consistent meditation makes life a little bit better, and has a process I just call 'purification'. SR='that's not me' and SR='I am that' are not processes as such. Of course you can see more and more clearly the futility and fallacy of ego-manic tendencies as progressive, but insight is sudden by nature. It's just the former one will be revealed by the means I suggest, The latter one, I don't think so. The main thing is the balance point which is perceived as becoming increasingly refined. I like that it comes with a paradox as well, the more refined and delicate it is, the stronger it is as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2022 22:22:34 GMT -5
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I can imagine it happening for millions of people in the past, it it's really quite remarkable. Now, I'll point out that to me you keep on morphing away from this first base you started on, which seemed to me to imply a process of analyzing intellectual abstractions, or, more generally, simply a way that people learn and refine their knowledge over time. In context, I'd describe your process as one that can lead to a quieter mind, a healthier body. It might lead to a person more present, less reactive, less lost in the weeds of their thinking and emoting processes. It can lead to better relationships and a more stable, centered way of life, and a lifestyle that would enhance one's ability to function, perform and produce. My value system would regard this as a better way to live than if someone were to instead never go through some sort of similar process. What seems to me to happen in the general populace is that common cultural influences lead to states and habits that are the exact opposite of a quiet mind, and rather than equanimity, cultivates impulse and conditioned response. But this issue of self-consistency sheds light on the distinction between a sudden shift in perspective as opposed to a gradual process of change over time. Seems to me your process involves, to some degree, suspension of doubt. A trust in what is yet to be revealed. So, to some degree what's happening here is an internalization of a belief system, and the kind of belief system that becomes self-reinforcing and eventually not even noticed for what it is. It's quite possible to suddenly see any and all systems of value and belief for what they are, just as it's possible to actively question any and every notion one currently would agree with as true. In this seeing it becomes quite clear that self-consistency is only ever provisional, and contextual. Not to mention, being a poor measure of reason. Consistency is the only viable assessment of reason in the step 2 category, and contradiction is it breakdown (it's basically an if-then thing), but since that pertains only to intellectual analysis, the step 3 of see for yourself is necessary for a complete ontology. I think you're preaching to the choir there. Say you hear someone like Ramana, Nis or Tolle tell you about something, and they same the same sorts of things, so you figure, Meh, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Then you actually undertake a practice of self-inquiry. They wouldn't start the inquiry unless they first heard (1), and thought it through (2), and based on their intellectual understanding of it, did the inquiry to find out for themselves. Not that there's a necessary chronology per se. Just that categorising it this way provides a complete ontological model. It means you can't just read 'I am That' and presto. You can't debate, discuss and understand and hey-presto. You can do that to form a 'roadmap', buy unless to go have a look... you're kinda like Mary's Room. I have had experiences no one has written down or talked about, so then it goes in reverse. I'm like, Whoa, what's that (3) then rationalise a format (2) in which I say it (1). I can't seem to illustrate it better than that ^
Yes constant or at least consistent meditation makes life a little bit better, and has a process I just call 'purification'. SR='that's not me' and SR='I am that' are not processes as such. Of course you can see more and more clearly the futility and fallacy of ego-manic tendencies as progressive, but insight is sudden by nature. It's just the former one will be revealed by the means I suggest, The latter one, I don't think so. The main thing is the balance point which is perceived as becoming increasingly refined. I like that it comes with a paradox as well, the more refined and delicate it is, the stronger it is as well.
Everything you say about self-consistency with respect to the Buddhist process you've described is valid, but it's valid in the context of the person in the world. Realization of nonduality has no reasonable self-consistency. Now, both the person and the world can benefit from your process, but the flip side of the coin is that the resulting self-consistent set of beliefs can form the center of a sense of identity. The realization reveals any and all sense of objectified, limited identity to be false. Some of the Zen koans seem to me to have come down to us through that culture precisely because they expose the one contemplating to the absence of any and all reason, much less consistency. I understand that one of the steps in the eightfold path is to seek refuge in the sangha. heh heh, I don't think those Zen guys are offering much existential shelter. To anyone.  |
|
[Go England!]
