|
|
Death
Jun 15, 2022 13:38:06 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 15, 2022 13:38:06 GMT -5
Your link is too complicated for me to decipher but I don't need data to know that things have gotten progressively from bad to worse since God made man.
Krishnamurti came into this world and saw a mess. He spent his whole life talking about the mess and asked if we would work together to clean it up. My interest in Krishnamurti is his conviction about why we created the mess and won't clean it up. He said that if we can figure out the cause, the mess would vanish instantly. Wouldn't that be cool?
What is your interest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Death
Jun 15, 2022 13:54:50 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 13:54:50 GMT -5
Your link is too complicated for me to decipher but I don't need data to know that things have gotten progressively from bad to worse since God made man.
Krishnamurti came into this world and saw a mess. He spent his whole life talking about the mess and asked if we would work together to clean it up. My interest in Krishnamurti is his conviction about why we created the mess and won't clean it up. He said that if we can figure out the cause, the mess would vanish instantly. Wouldn't that be cool?
What is your interest? If the 'mess' instantly vanished, then there would still be people that tried to find some mess, so that they could refine their skills in clearing it up. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 15, 2022 23:12:31 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 15, 2022 23:12:31 GMT -5
You mean physically? That's optional. Even mentally, that's also optional. It's just a matter of alignment. Existentially, that's a different story. That's a matter of realization.I think wanting to thrive is only natural, that's how everyone is wired, on a biological level already. It's a natural drive in all of us, animals too. To deny that seems silly. If suffering becomes too extreme or prospects too bleak, the individual life force usually will withdraw. But interesting how all these gurus suffered from cancer, Ramana, Ramakrishna, Niz, Krishnamurti... always made me wonder. They must not have know about this alignment business. Because yogis you usually don't see ending this way. And yogis know about alignment. Ultimately, these gurus probably didn't see anything fundamentally going wrong there. Usually they've been very clear and unwavering in their message till the (bitter) end (unlike Foster). But they did suffer physically, that's a fact, in Niz' and Ramakrishna's case it was actually very painful. So on the one hand you could say, from the perspective of the Absolute, nothing gone wrong or anything that needs to change, just another expression of THIS, but then on the other, from the individual perspective, why settle for less? And Ramana actually did opt for surgery. So there you see this natural will to live and drive to thrive again. I think what trips these gurus up that have a large following and later become very sick is that large following. You need to unpack this. I agree that physical suffering is definitely avoidable. Optional suffering makes no sense. It’s like saying, “whacking your own head with a hammer is optional”. You could be talking about something else. Please explain. The many yoga traditions cover this topic of physical and also mental health extensively. Vibrant health and a clear mind is not the mystery people tend to make it. And it is also not something that should be disregarded as some western gurus seem to suggest. In fact, a real guru will not teach you meditation techniques if your physical and mental state of being is not sound. If you are interested in this, take a look into kriya yoga. Their goal is basically a fully balanced individual - physically, emotionally, mentally and also morally. What it basically comes down to is alignment which will assure the optimal, smooth and natural functioning of body and mind. The basic premise here is that your natural state is total health. So yes, that's basically what I am saying, stop whacking your head with a hammer and the suffering will stop. If you take a closer look into yoga and their theories, it's actually very scientific. Usually they bring it down to a matter of life force, but I rather talk about it in terms of alignment. Existential suffering is a different kettle of fish. Existential suffering is about not knowing your place in the world, who you really are. And that cannot be resolved with just a yoga technique. There are a lot of people who don't suffer physically, emotionally or mentally, who live rich lives with amazing careers, very satisfying relationships and are swimming in abundance. And yet, they feel none of that actually matters, because their lives are lacking a certain depth or a deep sense of peace. There's this nagging sense in the background all the time that something is amiss, even though, by worldly standards, they are thriving on all fronts. And this is what we mostly talk about here on the forum, knowing with absolute certainty who you are, your true nature, and that deep sense of peace that comes with that knowing. This is not some kind of conceptual knowing that can be acquired and this peace is not something conditional that depends on what you do with your focus (as in meditation, or a yoga technique to calm your mind or improve your health). This is something entirely different, it is unconditional, it defies description, it cannot be conceptualized, it is completely beyond the realm and therefore grasp of mind, it therefore cannot even be imagined. At best it can be pointed to by saying what it is not, but never could you say what it actually is. And yet, when you encounter it, you will recognize it immediately, it will be utterly familiar, and it is always there. We call it TPTPAU (The Peace That Passeth All Understanding). Now, since TPTPAU is unconditional, physical thriving will not increase it and physical suffering will not diminish it. And that's what these sickly gurus usually demonstrate quite well, alignment in the unconditional sense, total acceptance and total knowing of who they are. What they often don't demonstrate all too well is alignment in the conditional sense. They do get angry with other people, they even may have some personality hick-ups like a choleric temperament that can cause trouble or they just want to be there for everyone all the time and wear themselves out in the process. So, IMO, we shouldn't conflate these two, alignment in the conditional sense and alignment in the unconditional sense. Or else we hold these gurus to unrealistic standards. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 7:46:41 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 16, 2022 7:46:41 GMT -5
Your link is too complicated for me to decipher but I don't need data to know that things have gotten progressively from bad to worse since God made man.
Krishnamurti came into this world and saw a mess. He spent his whole life talking about the mess and asked if we would work together to clean it up. My interest in Krishnamurti is his conviction about why we created the mess and won't clean it up. He said that if we can figure out the cause, the mess would vanish instantly. Wouldn't that be cool?
What is your interest? If the 'mess' instantly vanished, then there would still be people that tried to find some mess, so that they could refine their skills in clearing it up. See Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. You can jump to the bottom of the 4th paragraph and then read the 5 paragraph. The narrator decides to commit suicide but falls asleep, and has this dream. He finds paradise, but then by his own presence corrupts the people in paradise. He concludes having the ability to choose is better than paradise. IOW, the goal is not in having a perfect world. (Implied, life is basically a school, a series of choices every hour of every day). I read it about 50 years ago, it made a deep impression. But then finish to the end of the article, then you might want to go back to the 3rd paragraph and then maybe read it all. Then you might want to read the story itself. gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/choice-in-dostoevskys-dream-of-a-ridiculous-man/ |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 8:04:15 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 16, 2022 8:04:15 GMT -5
Your link is too complicated for me to decipher but I don't need data to know that things have gotten progressively from bad to worse since God made man.
Krishnamurti came into this world and saw a mess. He spent his whole life talking about the mess and asked if we would work together to clean it up. My interest in Krishnamurti is his conviction about why we created the mess and won't clean it up. He said that if we can figure out the cause, the mess would vanish instantly. Wouldn't that be cool?
What is your interest?
I promise I will quit beating a dead horse, but you are still misreading J Krishnamurti. I put some questions to you earlier which you didn't answer (show me anywhere JK specifically says his purpose is to ~fix~ the whole world). He always points the person back to himself or herself. He doesn't even claim to have a teaching, he is always saying you have to see for yourself. At most, JK helps facilitate the seeing. You can't point anywhere he says more. Show me where JK asked if we would work together to clean it up. You are reading into J Krishnamurti things he doesn't say. Read the post above about Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 9:04:01 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2022 9:04:01 GMT -5
If the 'mess' instantly vanished, then there would still be people that tried to find some mess, so that they could refine their skills in clearing it up. See Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. You can jump to the bottom of the 4th paragraph and then read the 5 paragraph. The narrator decides to commit suicide but falls asleep, and has this dream. He finds paradise, but then by his own presence corrupts the people in paradise. He concludes having the ability to choose is better than paradise. IOW, the goal is not in having a perfect world. (Implied, life is basically a school, a series of choices every hour of every day). I read it about 50 years ago, it made a deep impression. But then finish to the end of the article, then you might want to go back to the 3rd paragraph and then maybe read it all. Then you might want to read the story itself. gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/choice-in-dostoevskys-dream-of-a-ridiculous-man/I'm all up for finding meaning in your life, or creating meaning whichever way you want to say it. And I agree that once Paradise has been opened that even the slightest intention to improve it will taint and corrupt it. This qualifies as incredible in my book. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 9:20:03 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 9:20:03 GMT -5
Your link is too complicated for me to decipher but I don't need data to know that things have gotten progressively from bad to worse since God made man.
Krishnamurti came into this world and saw a mess. He spent his whole life talking about the mess and asked if we would work together to clean it up. My interest in Krishnamurti is his conviction about why we created the mess and won't clean it up. He said that if we can figure out the cause, the mess would vanish instantly. Wouldn't that be cool?
What is your interest?
I promise I will quit beating a dead horse, but you are still misreading J Krishnamurti. I put some questions to you earlier which you didn't answer (show me anywhere JK specifically says his purpose is to ~fix~ the whole world). He always points the person back to himself or herself. He doesn't even claim to have a teaching, he is always saying you have to see for yourself. At most, JK helps facilitate the seeing. You can't point anywhere he says more. Show me where JK asked if we would work together to clean it up. You are reading into J Krishnamurti things he doesn't say. Read the post above about Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Please bear with me. If I had read Krishnamurti “correctly” when I picked up that first K book in NYC, I would have chucked it back into the pile of second-hand books and moved on. Your reading of Krishnamurti “makes perfect sense” conventionally. You change, I change, everybody changes and the whole world is transformed. Why would Pope Francis, the Ayatollah, or the Dalai Lama listen to you? Collectively, they have billions of followers who live by a moral code that condemns Krishnamurti as a fake.
By the standards of conventional morality, Krishnamurti’s personal conduct as a religious man (something he considered himself) is laughable. One time, I was invited to a private gathering at the home of a Krishnamurti reader. The star of the show was a Tibetan Rinpoche perched in full lotus Buddha style on a sofa surrounded by people seated all around him on the living room floor. He was quite imposing because I had to muster all my will power to take a seat on a plush lounge chair facing him instead of joining the crowd on the floor. He had come to talk about Krishnamurti, “a living Buddha” and to answer questions about his teaching. Someone raised the matter about Krishnamurti’s affair with Rajagopal wife. The monk didn’t see any moral issue and asked, “what’s wrong about that?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to take that monk’s side, and I would disagree with you on that point too. My objection has nothing to do with the Noble Eight-fold Path. I do not condemn Krishnamurti who had clearly violated social ethics. He was human just as Bill Clinton is. The only difference between the two men is crudeness. Krishnamurti would not have cavorted in the Oval Office and done it on the Resolute Desk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2022 9:37:34 GMT -5
I promise I will quit beating a dead horse, but you are still misreading J Krishnamurti. I put some questions to you earlier which you didn't answer (show me anywhere JK specifically says his purpose is to ~fix~ the whole world). He always points the person back to himself or herself. He doesn't even claim to have a teaching, he is always saying you have to see for yourself. At most, JK helps facilitate the seeing. You can't point anywhere he says more. Show me where JK asked if we would work together to clean it up. You are reading into J Krishnamurti things he doesn't say. Read the post above about Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Please bear with me. If I had read Krishnamurti “correctly” when I picked up that first K book in NYC, I would have chucked it back into the pile of second-hand books and moved on. Your reading of Krishnamurti “makes perfect sense” conventionally. You change, I change, everybody changes and the whole world is transformed. Why would Pope Francis, the Ayatollah, or the Dalai Lama listen to you? Collectively, they have billions of followers who live by a moral code that condemns Krishnamurti as a fake.
By the standards of conventional morality, Krishnamurti’s personal conduct as a religious man (something he considered himself) is laughable. One time, I was invited to a private gathering at the home of a Krishnamurti reader. The star of the show was a Tibetan Rinpoche perched in full lotus Buddha style on a sofa surrounded by people seated all around him on the living room floor. He was quite imposing because I had to muster all my will power to take a seat on a plush lounge chair facing him instead of joining the crowd on the floor. He had come to talk about Krishnamurti, “a living Buddha” and to answer questions about his teaching. Someone raised the matter about Krishnamurti’s affair with Rajagopal wife. The monk didn’t see any moral issue and asked, “what’s wrong about that?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to take that monk’s side, and I would disagree with you on that point too. My objection has nothing to do with the Noble Eight-fold Path. I do not condemn Krishnamurti who had clearly violated social ethics. He was human just as Bill Clinton is. The only difference between the two men is crudeness. Krishnamurti would not have cavorted in the Oval Office and done it on the Resolute Desk. I tend to keep books that speak directly from a place of understanding about the true nature of perception. Perhaps that's just me. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 9:48:29 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 16, 2022 9:48:29 GMT -5
I promise I will quit beating a dead horse, but you are still misreading J Krishnamurti. I put some questions to you earlier which you didn't answer (show me anywhere JK specifically says his purpose is to ~fix~ the whole world). He always points the person back to himself or herself. He doesn't even claim to have a teaching, he is always saying you have to see for yourself. At most, JK helps facilitate the seeing. You can't point anywhere he says more. Show me where JK asked if we would work together to clean it up. You are reading into J Krishnamurti things he doesn't say. Read the post above about Dostoyevsky's story The Dream of a Ridiculous Man. Please bear with me. If I had read Krishnamurti “correctly” when I picked up that first K book in NYC, I would have chucked it back into the pile of second-hand books and moved on. Your reading of Krishnamurti “makes perfect sense” conventionally. You change, I change, everybody changes and the whole world is transformed. Why would Pope Francis, the Ayatollah, or the Dalai Lama listen to you? Collectively, they have billions of followers who live by a moral code that condemns Krishnamurti as a fake.
By the standards of conventional morality, Krishnamurti’s personal conduct as a religious man (something he considered himself) is laughable. One time, I was invited to a private gathering at the home of a Krishnamurti reader. The star of the show was a Tibetan Rinpoche perched in full lotus Buddha style on a sofa surrounded by people seated all around him on the living room floor. He was quite imposing because I had to muster all my will power to take a seat on a plush lounge chair facing him instead of joining the crowd on the floor. He had come to talk about Krishnamurti, “a living Buddha” and to answer questions about his teaching. Someone raised the matter about Krishnamurti’s affair with Rajagopal wife. The monk didn’t see any moral issue and asked, “what’s wrong about that?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to take that monk’s side, and I would disagree with you on that point too. My objection has nothing to do with the Noble Eight-fold Path. I do not condemn Krishnamurti who had clearly violated social ethics. He was human just as Bill Clinton is. The only difference between the two men is crudeness. Krishnamurti would not have cavorted in the Oval Office and done it on the Resolute Desk. I'm not advocating worldwide change in any sense, that's not possible. (If I say JK doesn't say that, I certainly wouldn't). I'm just saying it's possible for one person to change. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 11:45:50 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 11:45:50 GMT -5
Please bear with me. If I had read Krishnamurti “correctly” when I picked up that first K book in NYC, I would have chucked it back into the pile of second-hand books and moved on. Your reading of Krishnamurti “makes perfect sense” conventionally. You change, I change, everybody changes and the whole world is transformed. Why would Pope Francis, the Ayatollah, or the Dalai Lama listen to you? Collectively, they have billions of followers who live by a moral code that condemns Krishnamurti as a fake.
By the standards of conventional morality, Krishnamurti’s personal conduct as a religious man (something he considered himself) is laughable. One time, I was invited to a private gathering at the home of a Krishnamurti reader. The star of the show was a Tibetan Rinpoche perched in full lotus Buddha style on a sofa surrounded by people seated all around him on the living room floor. He was quite imposing because I had to muster all my will power to take a seat on a plush lounge chair facing him instead of joining the crowd on the floor. He had come to talk about Krishnamurti, “a living Buddha” and to answer questions about his teaching. Someone raised the matter about Krishnamurti’s affair with Rajagopal wife. The monk didn’t see any moral issue and asked, “what’s wrong about that?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to take that monk’s side, and I would disagree with you on that point too. My objection has nothing to do with the Noble Eight-fold Path. I do not condemn Krishnamurti who had clearly violated social ethics. He was human just as Bill Clinton is. The only difference between the two men is crudeness. Krishnamurti would not have cavorted in the Oval Office and done it on the Resolute Desk. I'm not advocating worldwide change in any sense, that's not possible. (If I say JK doesn't say that, I certainly wouldn't). I'm just saying it's possible for one person to change. No. It is not possible for one person to change. "One person" is an illusion.
An illusory entity is an idea. America is an illusory entity. So is Coca Cola, a business corporation. A corporation is not a person but it is another class of illusory entities.
You cannot change an idea, but you can create another idea with opposite attributes. This is what spiritual jackasses do. They are convinced that they are free of the self, the center. And they will prove it by pouring gasoline on themselves and sit in a meditative state till the charred body topples over.
Are you following me?
|
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 12:03:06 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 12:03:06 GMT -5
Please bear with me. If I had read Krishnamurti “correctly” when I picked up that first K book in NYC, I would have chucked it back into the pile of second-hand books and moved on. Your reading of Krishnamurti “makes perfect sense” conventionally. You change, I change, everybody changes and the whole world is transformed. Why would Pope Francis, the Ayatollah, or the Dalai Lama listen to you? Collectively, they have billions of followers who live by a moral code that condemns Krishnamurti as a fake.
By the standards of conventional morality, Krishnamurti’s personal conduct as a religious man (something he considered himself) is laughable. One time, I was invited to a private gathering at the home of a Krishnamurti reader. The star of the show was a Tibetan Rinpoche perched in full lotus Buddha style on a sofa surrounded by people seated all around him on the living room floor. He was quite imposing because I had to muster all my will power to take a seat on a plush lounge chair facing him instead of joining the crowd on the floor. He had come to talk about Krishnamurti, “a living Buddha” and to answer questions about his teaching. Someone raised the matter about Krishnamurti’s affair with Rajagopal wife. The monk didn’t see any moral issue and asked, “what’s wrong about that?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you were to take that monk’s side, and I would disagree with you on that point too. My objection has nothing to do with the Noble Eight-fold Path. I do not condemn Krishnamurti who had clearly violated social ethics. He was human just as Bill Clinton is. The only difference between the two men is crudeness. Krishnamurti would not have cavorted in the Oval Office and done it on the Resolute Desk. I tend to keep books that speak directly from a place of understanding about the true nature of perception. Perhaps that's just me. You did mention in another post that you have invested a lot of your attention on the nature of perception. I have done that also because I feel that perception is the beginning and the source of our existence. We should share our findings like incorruptible scientists in the search for "the truth in the false" (Krishnamurti), to come upon an insight into the nature of our world.
|
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 13:11:46 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 16, 2022 13:11:46 GMT -5
I'm not advocating worldwide change in any sense, that's not possible. (If I say JK doesn't say that, I certainly wouldn't). I'm just saying it's possible for one person to change. No. It is not possible for one person to change. "One person" is an illusion.
An illusory entity is an idea. America is an illusory entity. So is Coca Cola, a business corporation. A corporation is not a person but it is another class of illusory entities.
You cannot change an idea, but you can create another idea with opposite attributes. This is what spiritual jackasses do. They are convinced that they are free of the self, the center. And they will prove it by pouring gasoline on themselves and sit in a meditative state till the charred body topples over.
Are you following me?
A real answer from me would be long and complicated. I've explained my POV here extensively over the years, few have been interested. So, briefly. If you look at an acorn and tell me that's an oak tree, I would not believe you unless I had seen it happen, or understood DNA and the process of unfolding potential. So in a certain sense it is illusory to look at an acorn and tell me it's an oak tree, but only in a certain limited sense (and too the question of time enters here). In my view, a person, or individuation, is so in potential, that doesn't mean a person is an illusion, in total. Yes, I have agreed with zd many times that all abstractions are in a certain sense illusory. (We have never come to a mutual agreement). You will find much agreement here that the person is an illusion. However, for me the core of each person, the essence, is not illusory. We are in a very real sense seeds. As a seed is composed of an outer shell and an inner living kernel, each ~person~ consists of a living actual being on the one hand, the kernel, and on the other hand a culturally formed conditioned false sense of self, yes, an illusory self. It's possible to shift from being identified with the false self, to actualizing the potential of the seed which we are. But it's not so easy to so. Most of mankind are content to believe, #1, the false self is who-they-are, this maintains the illusion. Some believe, #2, it's merely necessary to see the illusory nature of the false sense of self, the small s self, some calling it the SVP (separate volitional person). But sdp says there's more, a #3, activate the potential of the seed of essence. The end of this process not-now-is for most people, like when the acorn still-is, the oak tree not-now-is. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 14:19:10 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 14:19:10 GMT -5
No. It is not possible for one person to change. "One person" is an illusion.
An illusory entity is an idea. America is an illusory entity. So is Coca Cola, a business corporation. A corporation is not a person but it is another class of illusory entities.
You cannot change an idea, but you can create another idea with opposite attributes. This is what spiritual jackasses do. They are convinced that they are free of the self, the center. And they will prove it by pouring gasoline on themselves and sit in a meditative state till the charred body topples over.
Are you following me?
A real answer from me would be long and complicated. I've explained my POV here extensively over the years, few have been interested. So, briefly. If you look at an acorn and tell me that's an oak tree, I would not believe you unless I had seen it happen, or understood DNA and the process of unfolding potential. So in a certain sense it is illusory to look at an acorn and tell me it's an oak tree , but only in a certain limited sense (and too the question of time enters here). In my view, a person, or individuation, is so in potential, that doesn't mean a person is an illusion, in total. Yes, I have agreed with zd many times that all abstractions are in a certain sense illusory. (We have never come to a mutual agreement). You will find much agreement here that the person is an illusion. However, for me the core of each person, the essence, is not illusory. We are in a very real sense seeds. As a seed is composed of an outer shell and an inner living kernel, each ~person~ consists of a living actual being on the one hand, the kernel, and on the other hand a culturally formed conditioned false sense of self, yes, an illusory self. It's possible to shift from being identified with the false self, to actualizing the potential of the seed which we are. But it's not so easy to so. Most of mankind are content to believe, #1, the false self is who-they-are, this maintains the illusion. Some believe, #2, it's merely necessary to see the illusory nature of the false sense of self, the small s self, some calling it the SVP (separate volitional person). But sdp says there's more, a #3, activate the potential of the seed of essence. The end of this process not-now-is for most people, like when the acorn still-is, the oak tree not-now-is. I am not disputing with you but asking for clarification.
You make a distinction between the illusory self and a living actual being. Let's say we meet. I walk into the room. You see me. What do you perceive? An illusory self or a living actual being?
|
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 14:56:53 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 16, 2022 14:56:53 GMT -5
A real answer from me would be long and complicated. I've explained my POV here extensively over the years, few have been interested. So, briefly. If you look at an acorn and tell me that's an oak tree, I would not believe you unless I had seen it happen, or understood DNA and the process of unfolding potential. So in a certain sense it is illusory to look at an acorn and tell me it's an oak tree , but only in a certain limited sense (and too the question of time enters here). In my view, a person, or individuation, is so in potential, that doesn't mean a person is an illusion, in total. Yes, I have agreed with zd many times that all abstractions are in a certain sense illusory. (We have never come to a mutual agreement). You will find much agreement here that the person is an illusion. However, for me the core of each person, the essence, is not illusory. We are in a very real sense seeds. As a seed is composed of an outer shell and an inner living kernel, each ~person~ consists of a living actual being on the one hand, the kernel, and on the other hand a culturally formed conditioned false sense of self, yes, an illusory self. It's possible to shift from being identified with the false self, to actualizing the potential of the seed which we are. But it's not so easy to so. Most of mankind are content to believe, #1, the false self is who-they-are, this maintains the illusion. Some believe, #2, it's merely necessary to see the illusory nature of the false sense of self, the small s self, some calling it the SVP (separate volitional person). But sdp says there's more, a #3, activate the potential of the seed of essence. The end of this process not-now-is for most people, like when the acorn still-is, the oak tree not-now-is. I am not disputing with you but asking for clarification.
You make a distinction between the illusory self and a living actual being. Let's say we meet. I walk into the room. You see me. What do you perceive? An illusory self or a living actual being? I perceive an actual living being, until you speak. |
|
|
|
Death
Jun 16, 2022 15:27:59 GMT -5
Post by sree on Jun 16, 2022 15:27:59 GMT -5
I am not disputing with you but asking for clarification.
You make a distinction between the illusory self and a living actual being. Let's say we meet. I walk into the room. You see me. What do you perceive? An illusory self or a living actual being? I perceive an actual living being, until you speak. So, when you are in a bustling public space such as an airport or supermarket, you see actual living beings? |
|
