|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 4, 2023 13:46:06 GMT -5
On the flip side, I see thousands of 'alignment' seekers that don't spend much time in alignment, because there's purification work to be done. There's a shed load of people out there that struggle with anxiety and that physiologically cannot be in alignment, until they've addressed the anxiety in some way. I see a balance...a time to purify, and a time to return to the Now. A time to do the work, and a time to walk off the battlefield. And that's going to be different for each individual. But, it all depends on what we are fundamentally driven towards. There was a time when I would have looked at Tolle and wanted what he had. Now I'm okay with my own spiritual path. As long as we are talking about the relative context, i.e. becoming healthy, wealthy, happy and wise, purification is fine. No objections on my part. But when we are talking about liberation, purification and karma and practice have no place here. In short, there's some serious context mixing going on here. If 'liberation' cannot be caused, or facilitated, and if nothing that is done can be said to be of any value in bringing about 'liberation', then I agree that purification/karma/practice is misconceived. The moment we talk about the usefulness or value of meditation, self-inquiry, earnestness or sincerity in terms of 'liberation', then purification must also be relevant and part of that conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 4, 2023 13:49:14 GMT -5
I see it as part of an unavoidable paradox to the human condition. The 'Now' is theoretically always available. Practically and realistically, it isn't. If it was, everyone would already be in it. In one way, the 'Now' happens TO us, so when it's not coming, what we can do is release our blocks to receiving it. It's not working to GET something, it's working to release our need to be in the way of it. So if one finds themselves generally struggling to be in the 'Now', or is struggling with anxiety and depression, use a damn tool. I don't see the paradox. You can't enter the NOW as a person. The person belongs to the realm of past, present and future. The NOW is prior to past, present and future. So you can't struggle your way into the NOW, only into the present. Simple. Then I'd say that we work at releasing our emotional-psychological need to be a person. But that too would only have value if we start with the presupposition that 'something' can be done to bring about 'liberation'/'in the Now'. If meditation/ATA/self-inquiry is all pointless, then so would working at releasing the need to be a person. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 4, 2023 14:23:49 GMT -5
This is for satch also. On the Yogacara thread Tagawa Shun'ei makes the point there is a something that presents continuity, from yesterday to today. He even says this something is fictitious. But he doesn't say it doesn't exist. There is undeniably a something, or you and satch couldn't keep a dialogue going with those here. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and satch and ZD and others here, say the self is illusory. But I will say all day every day for a million years, that that self exists as information in your own particular brain. Now, Tagawa also says the very nature of this something, is that it has the capability of distorting everything, it's very nature IS distortion. Our only ~hope~ is that the distortions are not absolutely irrevocably distorting, everyone has available buddha-nature. If you guys no longer suffer, all I can do is accept you are being honest that you never suffer. But sdp doesn't trust sdp, the distorting factors. Now, Tagawa doesn't describe precisely my path, but it's close enough to be able to communicate truth, with others. Basically, it does not compute for sdp how Reefs or satch or others ~wears-the-persona-of-a-person~, and can say ATST there isn't a self-person present. I just don't buy this idea of contexts. I'd rather have truth that is true in any and all contexts. And I don't buy this business of, Oh, once you are SR, it will all make sense. IOW, I can't honestly say who is deluded, You (plural) or sdp. And sdp sort of has some skin in the game. These words are just rolling out, but from years of trying to consider your views. I have to follow my path, no amount of words you throw at me can alter it. This is probably biased, but zazeniac and ouroboros and lolly and andrew and sharon (and I'm sure there are others) have more integrity than all of you put together. Self-delusion is one of the attributes Tagawa Shun'ei discusses. Get that? Understand, that? Why it just might be a problem? What are ~you~, telling me there is no ~you~? I've been fishing (the bait hides the hook), I've been scammed (never bigly). Scam is the word of the day. I'd rather not ever be scammed, again, concerning anything. ...This probably does it for me for today...for now anyway... attitude gets you nowhere, because your situation is that you are mistaking the rope in your dark room for a snake. You have to switch on the light to see clearly that it is actually a rope and not a snake what you are looking at. If you don't switch on the light because you got so used to the dark, you will never see clearly. You will just cling to the devil you know in fear of the devil you don't know. That's not a satisfying situation. Hence your level of frustration. Usually, only when people have suffered enough, they finally give up and are willing to hear me. Your defiant stance does indicate that you are not there yet. And so there's no point in wasting words on ears that can't hear. In terms of liberation as a causeless event, giving up would also have no value (nor would switching the light on). I'm okay with the idea that liberation as a causeless event, but I'm not sure how that would be different from any other event i.e the sun rising is causeless, cooking dinner is causeless, writing this message is causeless etc. And in the deepest sense, I think they can be said to be causeless. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 4, 2023 15:35:56 GMT -5
I'm no longer sure what you mean by having a sense of self, the ordinary self. I understand what ZD means. ZD experiences a flesh and blood body, sweat and tears. But for ZD there is no 'animating' self. I used to think that satch did consider that there was an animating self, that that's what you meant by self. Now it's pretty clear you are closer to the view of ZD. So it seems you have a completely different ~framework~ than lolly or ouroboros or zazeniac or sdp. For myself, I take responsibility for what the body does. Now, it's complicated, the source and reasons for thoughts and feelings and actions, but I'm a "The buck stops here" person. Now, I don't think sdp is in any sense separate from what you-all mean by All That Is, but there is a *person* here, flesh and blood. Volition is problematic. I basically concur that all our thoughts and feelings and actions arise from conditioning and programming, "garbage in, garbage out". Volition only enters as ~being-aware-of~ thoughts, feelings and actions, or ~being-attentive-to~ thoughts, feelings and actions. But, despite this, sdp is still responsible. My actions are filtered through the physiology of my brain-mind-body, the senses and the neurophysiology, not a direct ~outflowing~ of All That Is. Purification, is about dealing with all these parameters. If one does not know the law, of karma, this is not a cause for one to feel innocent if one ~commits a crime~, that is, subjects oneself to the law of karma. Thus, sdp is responsible. But the problem is, cause and effect occurs in a *whirlwind* of subconscious processing, and so day by day activities seem untied to my self. But everything that happens to you is from the principle of LOA. IOW, actions always have consequences. I presume this is not how satch sees the universe operating. I have no view whatsoever of how the universe operates. I wouldn't know what question to ask. But what you describe about taking responsibility etc is also my experience, but not as a volitional doer. If I'm being responsible then that responsibility just arises spontaneously from awareness. Why do I say that? Because I'm aware that awareness is fundamental and unchanging and that is what I truly am. Thoughts, feelings, responsibility, simply arise from that. You seem to suggest that with no such identification as an individual that would result in me feeling innocent if I committed a crime. Why? Would not the feeling of guilt also arise spontaneously without doership? What I don't understand is why you are having difficulty with the sense of self. When you wake up in the morning and before a single thought enters your mind do you cry out, who the hell am I until a thought appears reminding you of what your name is and where you are? You are a man. Do you have to keep saying to yourself I'm a man I'm a man I'm a man to know that you're a man? That knowledge is intrinsic without being conscious of it. You're not thinking I am a man but if I ask you, are you a man you will say without hesitation yes because it is intrinsic and in the same way the sense of self, of sentience of aliveness, of being conscious is intrinsic. That sense of knowing that you are you is there no matter what clothes you are wearing or what feelings or thoughts you are experiencing or whatever you are seeing. You have a knowledge that you are YOU. The reason you are having difficulty is that you are thinking about what it means rather than what it simply is. That's why I keep saying that mind is the only obstacle to knowing your true nature. I don't have difficulty with my sense of self, having a sense of self, I've never said otherwise. I have difficulty with having the claim of being impersonal, being-Source, or being-All That Is, and having a self, simultaneously. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 4, 2023 16:46:26 GMT -5
This is for satch also. On the Yogacara thread Tagawa Shun'ei makes the point there is a something that presents continuity, from yesterday to today. He even says this something is fictitious. But he doesn't say it doesn't exist. There is undeniably a something, or you and satch couldn't keep a dialogue going with those here. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and satch and ZD and others here, say the self is illusory. But I will say all day every day for a million years, that that self exists as information in your own particular brain. Now, Tagawa also says the very nature of this something, is that it has the capability of distorting everything, it's very nature IS distortion. Our only ~hope~ is that the distortions are not absolutely irrevocably distorting, everyone has available buddha-nature. If you guys no longer suffer, all I can do is accept you are being honest that you never suffer. But sdp doesn't trust sdp, the distorting factors. Now, Tagawa doesn't describe precisely my path, but it's close enough to be able to communicate truth, with others. Basically, it does not compute for sdp how Reefs or satch or others ~wears-the-persona-of-a-person~, and can say ATST there isn't a self-person present. I just don't buy this idea of contexts. I'd rather have truth that is true in any and all contexts. And I don't buy this business of, Oh, once you are SR, it will all make sense. IOW, I can't honestly say who is deluded, You (plural) or sdp. And sdp sort of has some skin in the game. These words are just rolling out, but from years of trying to consider your views. I have to follow my path, no amount of words you throw at me can alter it. This is probably biased, but zazeniac and ouroboros and lolly and andrew and sharon (and I'm sure there are others) have more integrity than all of you put together. Self-delusion is one of the attributes Tagawa Shun'ei discusses. Get that? Understand, that? Why it just might be a problem? What are ~you~, telling me there is no ~you~? I've been fishing (the bait hides the hook), I've been scammed (never bigly). Scam is the word of the day. I'd rather not ever be scammed, again, concerning anything. ...This probably does it for me for today...for now anyway... attitude gets you nowhere, because your situation is that you are mistaking the rope in your dark room for a snake. You have to switch on the light to see clearly that it is actually a rope and not a snake what you are looking at. If you don't switch on the light because you got so used to the dark, you will never see clearly. You will just cling to the devil you know in fear of the devil you don't know. That's not a satisfying situation. Hence your level of frustration. Usually, only when people have suffered enough, they finally give up and are willing to hear me. Your defiant stance does indicate that you are not there yet. And so there's no point in wasting words on ears that can't hear. I accept Tagawa Shun'ei's Yogacara view. ~We~ *are* flesh and blood "three-brained-beings". The self which is conversing with ZGM right now, and the self whereby ZGM is likewise conversing, has been pressed into play from the three subjective transformations, the first two being subconscious processing from all the previously accumulated data. Trying to live from two different contexts is nonsense. If ZGM lives and derives from Source, then there is no personal context, period. So I don't know that ZGM hasn't built an imaginary castle in the clouds, where the personal contexts lives in an imaginary Oneness "context" (air quotes). So it seems our worlds do not overlap enough to even dialogue. I don't want anything from the ND context, that's mostly presented here, I thought I've always made that clear. I don't know that your perspective has not been fed into the three subjective transformations, and out has popped the imaginary castle in the clouds from subconscious processing. I forgot to start with: If you really want to know what I think... I am not frustrated, I'm just trying to tell my truth, and hold up a mirror. Tagawa Shun'ei has more weight than everything you have ever written, here. Maya is a _itch. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 16:48:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 16:57:29 GMT -5
Is the impersonal perspective where Tsu lives? You mean Tzu? Tzu lives in the still mind. And a still mind is not the ticket to the impersonal. If it would, we could produce enlightened beings on an assembly line. But that obviously isn't happening and apparently has never happened and will never happen. Ok.. so it's just the energy that remains when the mind stops engaging with the world? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 4, 2023 17:07:36 GMT -5
In the post I replied to, I was referring to what you said I said in my post, not to the proposed dialogue. (Most everything I have ever written here, is about other people's self-imposed limitations. That's what I guessed wasn't clear. I didn't mean everything I had written here was about my own self-imposed limitations). I already said I don't think we will get anywhere in the proposed dialogue. I already said, the way this dialogue started, attaining liberation is immeasurably difficult, that statement was made from blood, sweat and tears experience, not from a self-imposed limitation. IOW, your original premise is faulty. I also said I do not do personal here, that's why I said I don't think we will get anywhere with this proposed dialogue. The quote today on the Yogacara thread is about immeasurably difficult, the fly in the ointment quotes. My post just above to ZGM is also about immeasurably difficult. Self-imposed limitations are made to be torn down, but they are immeasurably difficult to be torn down. Anyone who has not come upon these limitations, hasn't seen deeply enough into self. They don't just go away from some kind of Jedi mind tricks, or even realizations. Yes, the cultural self is fictitious, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, ask me a better question. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 4, 2023 17:18:25 GMT -5
In the post I replied to, I was referring to what you said I said in my post, not to the proposed dialogue. (Most everything I have ever written here, is about other people's self-imposed limitations. That's what I guessed wasn't clear. I didn't mean everything I had written here was about my own self-imposed limitations). I already said I don't think we will get anywhere in the proposed dialogue. I already said, the way this dialogue started, attaining liberation is immeasurably difficult, that statement was made from blood, sweat and tears experience, not from a self-imposed limitation. IOW, your original premise is faulty. I also said I do not do personal here, that's why I said I don't think we will get anywhere with this proposed dialogue. The quote today on the Yogacara thread is about immeasurably difficult, the fly in the ointment quotes. My post just above to ZGM is also about immeasurably difficult. Self-imposed limitations are made to be torn down, but they are immeasurably difficult to be torn down. Anyone who has not come upon these limitations, hasn't seen deeply enough into self. They don't just go away from some kind of Jedi mind tricks, or even realizations. Yes, the cultural self is fictitious, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, ask me a better question.No. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2023 20:55:41 GMT -5
I have no view whatsoever of how the universe operates. I wouldn't know what question to ask. But what you describe about taking responsibility etc is also my experience, but not as a volitional doer. If I'm being responsible then that responsibility just arises spontaneously from awareness. Why do I say that? Because I'm aware that awareness is fundamental and unchanging and that is what I truly am. Thoughts, feelings, responsibility, simply arise from that. You seem to suggest that with no such identification as an individual that would result in me feeling innocent if I committed a crime. Why? Would not the feeling of guilt also arise spontaneously without doership? What I don't understand is why you are having difficulty with the sense of self. When you wake up in the morning and before a single thought enters your mind do you cry out, who the hell am I until a thought appears reminding you of what your name is and where you are? You are a man. Do you have to keep saying to yourself I'm a man I'm a man I'm a man to know that you're a man? That knowledge is intrinsic without being conscious of it. You're not thinking I am a man but if I ask you, are you a man you will say without hesitation yes because it is intrinsic and in the same way the sense of self, of sentience of aliveness, of being conscious is intrinsic. That sense of knowing that you are you is there no matter what clothes you are wearing or what feelings or thoughts you are experiencing or whatever you are seeing. You have a knowledge that you are YOU. The reason you are having difficulty is that you are thinking about what it means rather than what it simply is. That's why I keep saying that mind is the only obstacle to knowing your true nature. I don't have difficulty with my sense of self, having a sense of self, I've never said otherwise. I have difficulty with having the claim of being impersonal, being-Source, or being-All That Is, and having a self, simultaneously. Yes that's quite understandable. I think most people would have a problem with this seemingly contradictory concept. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 4, 2023 21:16:35 GMT -5
Nice. Hard subject to cover, and have to be well organised to do so without losing the plot. I think what reefs is missing is that the practice itself and the outcomes of practice aren't the same thing. IMO best to understand that 'letting go' is just the same as 'leaving it be as it is'. Indeed, if anything, the former of these imply agency rather than the latter. I like the explanation that says when you exert volition you produce a potential which inevitably manifests in conscious experience, only to pass away. Since this isn't linear, but better imagined as circular, it's called the kammic cycle. The cycle is something like, something happens, you react, reaction incites volition, a potential is produced, the potential manifests in experience, you react to it, volition, potential, manifest, react... in a loop. Meditation breaks the cycle at the reaction stage. Hence it isn't a practice of doing, but a practice of being conscious of what you already do unintentionally, and ceasing to do that. By ceasing to react you cease volition etc. and 'breaks' the kammic cycle. Even though the potentials of volition manifest immediately as subtle sensations in the body, the reactive tendency in itself is resistive, so the scope of the potential is left unrealised. Thus these potentials start to accumulate in the life form. The most obvious example is how unresolved trauma as a child can affect outcomes in adult life. These accumulations of potential are manifest in themselves and can be felt throughout the body as tensions, solidity, density, heaviness, tightness or similar feelings. Other body areas become numb as you become increasingly unconscious of the manifestation, which is probably quite a difficult one being avoided. This is why they say meditation is for purification. People accumulate gunk and reefs is correct in saying it has to be let go. However, I prefer to say don't let go, don't hold on, just know it as a fact and let it be as it is. It is better than imagining that there is 'someone' holding on that must now let go. I know 'this is how it is'. Period. There is no further step. The thing can go or it can stay (but it will inevitably change). The desire for it to go is an aversion that only adds to the accumulation. One needs objective neutrality to witness the truth, as experienced by you, with the indifference one who is not affected by it. You see how this breaks the cycle at the reaction link. Since the reactivity ceased, volition ceases, and therefore, new potentials are no longer generated. The old accumulation of potentials continue to manifest as conscious experience and pass away. It's likened to a fire which you keep fueling. When you cease to add new wood, the old wood will burn out in its own time. As such, the accumulated sankara will eventually expire - and this emptying out is referred to as 'purification'. Here's the nuance: The desire for purification is aversion toward impurity, and this reactive tendency only adds more fuel to the fire The reason this aspect is not 'now' is because the process unfolds in its own way in its own time, just as the fire doesn't die 'now', but dwindles from now on. The fire takes a while to go out, but it inevitably will. If everything came through right now all at once it'd overwhelm you so much you'd never come back. This is why 'let go' may sound right as a conventional wisdom, but it isn't really the thing. The meditator has limitations with regard to his equanimity and can let go to that degree, but in practice you will find there is a point at which you become overwhelmed. The practice is an exercise that strengthens equanimity, the enhancement of which enables you to take more that you could before. Thus the purification deepens and deep seated sankaras are unloosed, surface in the experience and pass away. The removal of these obstacles clears the channel so the pure love of the universe flows through for you to express itself in all aspects of your life. Even then, there's only so much a koala can bear, and as it flows, you still hit limitations that you can't currently surpass. At that stage the tendency for desire is so strong you keep getting misled by temptations with the delusion that your motive is pure. Hence the practice remains consistent: neutral awareness with balance of mind as one who remains unaffected. I guess I'll end there, because it starts with pure motive, and it also ends there. Again, what you are proposing is all good and useful in the relative, deliberate creation context. And this is even better written (and especially more concise!) than what Ouros presented. But the fact remains, you both remain fixated on behaviorism. And as long as you do that, you make liberation conditional which means you remain stuck in the relative realm. And then liberation is not liberation, but just another level of identity poker. The purification pertains to the body mind and depends primarily on equanimity. There's two aspects, ardent awarenjess with equanimity of mind. That's what we train. Everything else is a consequential aside. Equanimity is the cessation of reactivity. Ie not resisting and clinging and so forth. You say 'let go' and I say 'let be', but I offer a nuanced elaboration, and you don't. I asked for your explanation but you didn't get back to me. II suspect that you don't understand the topic very well because not only do you decline to explain it, but you pooh pooh someone who explains it quite well. It looks like Dunning Kruger to me I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 4, 2023 21:39:00 GMT -5
Interesting question, and there are several ways to approach it. The impersonal premise offers both opportunity and pitfall, as does the personal. This is perhaps illustrated by the extremes. Just look to pop culture for the extreme of the personal premise. The spiritual ideal of the personal premise is total and sincere devotion to God. The extreme of the impersonal premise - prior to realization as to the nature of the dichotomy - is a complete emotional detachment. The spiritual ideal of the impersonal premise is elevated wisdom and a deep love for the world. In thinking back to your writings on the meditation, it doesn't seem to me so easy to pigeon hole it in terms of either premise. To choose one, I'd say personal, because it is focused on reactivity, so, the focus is on personal reactivity. And yet, the "solution" to the reactivity is impersonal, in that your advice is to observe the reaction and let it pass. In that, your descriptions always seemed to me to directly invoke self-inquiry, begging the obvious question .. "what reacts?". If you're interested, I could advocate for an impersonal premise. I'm personally biased toward an impersonal premise from personal experience.  Yes. Please advocate for the impersonal premise. The impersonal premise is an interest and orientation toward truth. This is less susceptible to emotionally based self-deception. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2023 22:05:21 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Even the logic seems flawed to me .. how to square purification with interdependent origination? But that is jut the mind, gaming, after all. I had a similar thought to yours here today. More importantly than the logic - and satch raised this as one of his original interests here years ago - I see this as related to a very old dichotomy. There aren't many Buddhists left in India, and Advaita flipped the duck/bunny of " no self" to " only self". So Ramana's inquiry is "who am I?". As ultimately, there is no inner, and no outer, this is just the flip side of "what is that?". So "ATA-T" is just a flip-side, mirror image of Ramana's "who am I?" or Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Only difference being the vector of attention, either "inward", or "outward". From the personal perspective, this is the dichotomy of subjective/objective. Focusing "inward", with "who am I?" can lead a person into solipsism (whether they want to see it that way or not). Focusing "outwward", with "what is that?", can lead a person into nihilism. Two sides, same coin. But I also think it's important to recognize the value of a silent, still (quiescent, but open and pliant) mind, regardless of how one gets there. And while human social systems are a disaster, asking people to treat one another decently really doesn't seem like asking all that much, to me.  So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my misgivings and objections about using the notion. In the relative context, which is the deliberate creation context, I am all for purification. But in the absolute context, the liberation context, purification has no place. So essentially what we are dealing with here is a context mix, people trying to apply what works in the smaller context to the larger context as well, by creating some kind of bridge between the two. By doing so they reveal their ignorance of that larger context. And the fact that they think they have discovered some failproof universal method doesn't make it better, it actually is ESA at its finest. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2023 22:10:37 GMT -5
We expressed our views on this subject, and they are different. My view is like "I want to be healthy", while yours is "I want to know what illness I have", expecting that once you know that you'll know how to get healthy. I dispute that your way works, because on one hand you focus on illness and that perpetuates it, on the other hand you incorrectly assume that knowing your illness you'll be able to cure it, and most likely you won't. My question is "What do I have to do now", and looking for an answer from my inner source of knowledge and guidance, or at least using my intuition. Your question is more like "Who/what am I" expecting that once knowing that you'll be able to intellectually figure out what to do now. I believe that the latter approach doesn't work, ever. I just tried once more to make my views more clear, with no intention to convince you. I know that you have your free-will to make your choices. Intellectually, is not what's pertinent. What is, is just what is, it's what's manifesting now, whatever is manifesting, now. And the only way to access now is via attention and or awareness. Attention and or awareness are the keys to everything. Attention and or awareness have zero to do with the intellect, with the conceptualizing mind. All the intellect can do is make maps. Maps can only help say where to look. Exactly. This is what you are doing, the only thing you are doing. You research maps and then keep working on your own map, but your maps aren't backed up by anything actual, they are just copies of other copies and edits of other edits. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2023 22:19:53 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Can you explain how a personal premise is problematic and why an impersonal one makes better sense?
Not sure what you mean. I talk about a personal vs. an impersonal perspective, not premise. |
|
So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my