|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 11:28:02 GMT -5
RM says there are no jnanis, because there are no individuals, nevertheless there are those distinctions, but they are only superficial. Is this really relevant? Not really. Being on one side or the other doesnn't bring you any closer to freedom. So if we don't exist why are we doing this rumba? Hahaha. One Zen guy said "we do and we don't" rumba. "This is and it isn't." Still only a pointer. Roight, every thing is within What's realizable. All questions arise within mind, which is within What's realizable.
🔥 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 12:20:06 GMT -5
I still don't know what all that means. Sorry. The second quote is what you finally noticed. Read the thread in sequence backwards if you care to understand .. you know that each post links backwards, right? But what makes you think I only finally noticed it? Did I say, Oh, I finally noticed this? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 31, 2023 13:06:59 GMT -5
RM says there are no jnanis, because there are no individuals, nevertheless there are those distinctions, but they are only superficial. Is this really relevant? Not really. Being on one side or the other doesnn't bring you any closer to freedom. So if we don't exist why are we doing this rumba? Hahaha. One Zen guy said "we do and we don't" rumba. "This is and it isn't." Still only a pointer. Roight, every thing is within What's realizable. All questions arise within mind, which is within What's realizable.
🔥 Still hanging on to that mind thing. Lose ir and you'll buy the funny farm. We might already be there. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 13:37:56 GMT -5
Roight, every thing is within What's realizable. All questions arise within mind, which is within What's realizable.
🔥 Still hanging on to that mind thing. Lose ir and you'll buy the funny farm. We might already be there. 😁 It has its place and function, and serves the individuation well enough, especially at the funny farm! It works betterer without all the existential bugs of the beta version.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 13:50:24 GMT -5
I think probably he's been tripped up by the language. We'll see, his next post. Cool on the scientist. Sounds like possibly Bernard Haisch, he has a new book out (his 3rd I believe). The Miracle of Our Universe. Look forward to your post. Okay, the guy's name is Federico Fa ggin (had to separate his name due to a crazy filter), and he's an Italian physicist, entrepreneur, inventor, etc who developed the first commercial microprocessor. There are several YouTube videos where the guy explains what happened to him and how it changed his outlook on the nature of reality. I couldn't find the exact video Carol showed me last night, but he refers in several interviews to his experience of a white light coming out of his chest that was pure love and other energetic phenomena and experiences that revealed to him the primordial nature of awareness. He established a foundation for research into consciousness, and by entering his name on YouTube one can find all kinds of interesting interviews with him. Under Wiki's description of his many discoveries and awards there's a paragraph describing how quantum theory applies to consciousness. I'd post some of it, but have to run some errands, and anyone can find the info by googling his name. I think you'll find his words on the subject of non-duality and quantum theory rather fascinating. Very nice. I just now linked an interview with him on the TED Talk thread, listened to in full. Very wonderful most excellent fantastic, highly recommended. Thanks, nice find. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 14:29:33 GMT -5
How did you put yourself in a box? By your own means? I don't really know from what you have said, how you have concluded what you have to be honest or what that actually is. To step back, I read a lot of Alan Watts in my 20s, so I knew all about nonduality. So I decided to explore it. A thought experiment is done in the mind. Example, Einstein is famous for his thought experiments. As a teenager he imagined what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. Eventually, out of this, he developed {Special) Relativity. So, to see if I was separate, I imagined myself in an icebox (it could have been any sealed box, an icebox came to mind, probably as sometimes kids trap themselves in an old abandoned icebox-refrigerator). Pretty quick I saw I needed air-oxygen, so no, there is no separation. I could write you pages and pages about my further explorations. I took it all the way up to "God", we can't live without God-Source. And the why of that connects to entropy. So I saw that, yes, nonduality is the case. I just filed that away. Here, I should have left it as that. But sdp tries to be meticulously honest, so I wrote, I am not a NDist without qualification, or, I am a NDist with qualification. It's a technical predilection, why I am a pan entheist and not a pantheist (nonduality is basically pantheism). But everybody only remembers the technicality. So, basically, for the record, as I've said literally probably a hundred times, I have no problem with nonduality, I'm basically a NDist (but not without qualification). But no SR-TR here, I haven't had the lightning bolt. So, sdp in a sealed box was an imaginary experiment. We need air-oxygen, water, food. Food essentially comes from the sun, through photosynthesis....and that turns into pages and pages... Basically, if you want to make an apple pie, from scratch, you have to start with a Big Bang, and that's just the physics, then you get into metaphysics... Soz Pilgrim, give it to me in Tenka Terms and Conditions .. You imagined you were in an ice box, and you saw that you needed air and oxygen so from that you concluded there was no separation. This is based upon the human organism needs oxygen in order to survive the human experience? There was a oneness between you and the need for oxygen? Going to go red faced in shame here if what you said was abundantly clear  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 14:38:41 GMT -5
An individual that experiences a human form is a package deal. What you are forms a personality that is part of the expression of that individuality. The spirit, the soul embodies the form or object. There is no divide. Perhaps it is more so everyone else isn't on the same page as Tenka. I have no problem with your paradigm. NDists simplify everything down, it's not actually simple. A human being is complicated, {Say we are an Oversoul. [But also *we are* a soul (which is part of the Oversoul). (But we are born as a individual-body with a skin-suit). The (individual) forms a personality])}. The Oversoul ~contains~ it all. The soul contains the (individual-body)personality. The personality does not contain the soul or the Oversoul. The Higher contains the lower but the lower does not contain the Higher. {That's a metaphor for pan entheism}. But yes, personality is part of the expression. But it's complicated. Read ZDs last post, explanation. inavalan has a nice paradigm also. It can be a messy affair if one's beliefs don't stretch too far. I haven't a clue for example what non dualists believe when there physical body experience ends. I never hear anyone speak along the lines of the spirit or the soul or life after physical death. I haven't a clue if they think that their individual blob of awareness just merges with the ocean and that is the end of that. I have the advantage of interacting with the so called deceased so I know the self personality - personhood continues without a brain. A brain that is somehow used as a way of explaining the dynamics of things. It's good to have a comparison from one plane of existence to another. Otherwise non dualists can just relate the physical world with beyond and nothing in-between. I know your belief system stretches further than the hard core nd peep that doesn't even believe someone is even here. The personality is part of the expression we agree, and there cannot be just an expression without the individual spirit - soul present. The person is so much more than just a label, a self reference for something that one is. This is why there is such a misconception about there is no doer and that is because peeps think the person is just a name. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 14:52:51 GMT -5
Having nowhere to go is no truer than having everywhere to go. It's a conceptual box based upon what is believed. Anyone with any existential belief is not at the top of the pole. .. So why do you favour one concept over another when you believe that all concepts are flawed. (just interested) From my perspective life experienced with concepts in toe are fine. When we associate a concept of love with a feeling of union with a child or a partner then most will know the association between the concept and the meaning that we feel from it. It's a experiential reflection / knowing isn't it. So we can relate to what is referred too without saying wtf is that conceptual B.S. it's nowhere near the mark of how I feel. Again, not to be Tom Petty about this, even though by your own admission your thoughts about anyone with an existential belief is not at the top of the pole, really doesn't give your statement much weight does it? It's like you're saying stuff but for what it's worth by it might as well be something written in Klingon. This is why I said earlier that when a foundational premise it put forward in this way, you don't have anything credible to say based upon your foundation. If your foundation was different your statements could be seen as wise or logical or sound whatever word suits for followers of your posts. I know you said earlier to burn all the concepts but it doesn't help you. Not saying you need help |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 14:58:48 GMT -5
This is the thing that makes no sense to me. You get peeps that say everything said or believed in relation to that should be burnt at the Zen stake lol. It's neti-neti, the path of subtraction. I have to imagine what sasquatch writes about nirvikalpa samadhi, but I've gone deep enough into states that I can, so I suspend my disbelief. Same for a false awakening in a lucid dream. You're laughing about something that you're unfamiliar with, which is fine, really. Notice how you didn't answer the question at the end? Not everyone need climb that pole of having questioned and suspended all belief. It's not necessary, but it is unforgettable.  .. I understand neti neti but haven't had the need to renounce bits and pieces to derive at what I did. I bypassed all that. I am not laughing at those that take that approach, it just doesn't float my boat because I believe there is only what you are. Why would there be the need to break that up into something that supposedly what you are isn't. If I have missed a prominent question I will go back to it. If nothing else, I do tend to answer peeps questions. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 15:07:04 GMT -5
Coming from that foundation there is nowhere else to go for you. Similar to the dream brigade, or the there is no one here posse. Once there has been a foundation set in stone they are restricted within such premises with nowhere else to go. Everything of the mind is thought based, I will not dismiss that, so individuality is thought based, but why is there the thought of individuality? There has to be awareness of that. This is why the swan thinking it was a duck mattered not in regards to the actuality. My thoughts on individuality whist conversing with other's has always been referring to the nature of the person. The person that isn't an appearance only. A person that isn't materialised by some God that can create the moon by looking up in the sky. I have been thorough in my questionings, they have been specific. My thoughts just recently about what is known instead of being beliefs is an example of how what I actually say can be difficult to keep on track by other's who change the contexts or don't answer. Here we are years later still trying to get peeps to speak about their peephood. The existential question is where my interests on this forum center, and most dialogs always circle around it, and it's quite easy to relate those threads very directly to that question. What can be discovered in pursuing that question is that most people's sense of personhood is an illusion. Isn't that quite an astounding claim, if it is true?.. If this is the question I missed my apologies. Well it can't be true based upon your foundation. self and what is illusory are conceptual beliefs. There are however plenty of astonishing claims that I read, some say there is no doer or no self. That's astonishing for sure If we were to agree just for the sake of a debate that there can be existential truth based upon experiences had where the illusory self is true then again this would boil down to if what is true is realised to be that. Then we would have to bend the foundation of what is beyond as not beyond and then try and make everything fit to suit all the hypotheticals |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 31, 2023 15:12:29 GMT -5
Still hanging on to that mind thing. Lose ir and you'll buy the funny farm. We might already be there. 😁 It has its place and function, and serves the individuation well enough, especially at the funny farm! It works betterer without all the existential bugs of the beta version. Seems to me, the mind can't deal the razor's edge. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 31, 2023 15:23:32 GMT -5
I guess you read straight through, all posts. Last night tenka was still not on the same page as everyone else. But, I also said I would cease trying to explain. Just for the record, I don't understand 3/4 of your posts (anyway). I don't think tenka makes any division between *person* and *individual*. As I was going to bed, lolly was giving his input (to tenka). 15 hours ago Well I have spoken about the individual before and it was refuted based upon the individual is referred to as being a SVP. I am not going treasure hunting for these posts. The personhood also is seen through as an illusion has been mentioned over time, again, I am not going treasure hunting here, it's up to other members to remember what has been said previously. I am for the record not aiming my posts at ZD or Laffy here specifically, if I was I would say it out loud, I am speaking along general terms regarding exchanges I have had over time with many a folk. Like said, some ND folk can't believe in individuality becoz there is supposedly only One. If peeps want to look back at certain exchanges over several months some have entered a conversation with me referring to the individual self is illusory as a foundation, so it's not all cleared up just cos ZD comes clean about the individual is. You see how can the individual be correct and yet the selfhood be seen through as being illusory. If there is an individual person then there is an individual self, a selfhood because you can't have one without the other. I haven't caught up with other posts, so there might yet be an explanation.I think there is an explanation, and last night I wrote an email to a guy who has apparently awakened a lot of people asking for his perspective on this. I've mentioned before that people do NOT have the same sense of selfhood prior to SR/TR, and what they say about the sense of selfhood after SR/TR may vary a great deal depending upon how they thought about their identity prior to that event. This is why some people after SR/TR claim that there's no "me" and other people claim that there is. Because of this difference in the way that people self-identify, and what happens to that sense of self-identity in the event of SR/TR, there may never be any agreement about the SVP/individual issue because each individual's unique perspective may be so different. If someone has one or more realizations that ultimately results in freedom, peace, and equanimity, that seems to be the only thing of importance. Arguing about definitions and one's unique POV may be fun, but it's what my wife laughingly calls "squabbling sages." I think most posters here agree about the distinction between "SVP" and "individual body/mind organisms," but for those who don't I suspect that it's either a language issue or an issue dependent upon the sense of self-identity prior to SR/TR. After I get some feedback from the guy who's been so successful at triggering SR/TR in people I'll post a bit more. The one thing I think everyone can agree upon is that SR/TR results in the realization that "what we are" is beyond the grasp of conceptualization. So it's a little unclear from what you have said what refers to an actual individual person. The pilgrim and I are in agreement regarding the individual spirit - soul that forms a personality whilst experiencing the mind body. Are you in agreement with that? It doesn't matter if you're not, for the record I am laying down my understandings and explaining for why I say there is a personal doer and a personal self whist not being separated from what you are fundamentally. Peeps can and do have different thoughts about self being no more after realisations or transcendence as we have discussed even though in certain examples given a sense of self still remains even though there is a thought that it is absent. In Tenka Terms and Conditions what is an individual person, and why in your eyes would the selfhood be illusory . As touched upon, some think the person is just a label that refers to Tenka who may believe that Tenka is the doer or what they are (for example). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 15:31:31 GMT -5
I have no problem with your paradigm. NDists simplify everything down, it's not actually simple. A human being is complicated, {Say we are an Oversoul. [But also *we are* a soul (which is part of the Oversoul). (But we are born as a individual-body with a skin-suit). The (individual) forms a personality])}. The Oversoul ~contains~ it all. The soul contains the (individual-body)personality. The personality does not contain the soul or the Oversoul. The Higher contains the lower but the lower does not contain the Higher. {That's a metaphor for pan entheism}. But yes, personality is part of the expression. But it's complicated. Read ZDs last post, explanation. inavalan has a nice paradigm also. It can be a messy affair if one's beliefs don't stretch too far. I haven't a clue for example what non dualists believe when there physical body experience ends. I never hear anyone speak along the lines of the spirit or the soul or life after physical death. I haven't a clue if they think that their individual blob of awareness just merges with the ocean and that is the end of that. I have the advantage of interacting with the so called deceased so I know the self personality - personhood continues without a brain. A brain that is somehow used as a way of explaining the dynamics of things. It's good to have a comparison from one plane of existence to another. Otherwise non dualists can just relate the physical world with beyond and nothing in-between. I know your belief system stretches further than the hard core nd peep that doesn't even believe someone is even here. The personality is part of the expression we agree, and there cannot be just an expression without the individual spirit - soul present.The person is so much more than just a label, a self reference for something that one is. This is why there is such a misconception about there is no doer and that is because peeps think the person is just a name. . Highly recommend the video on the TED Talks thread of the guy ZD recommended, Federico Fa ggin. He explains what he basically calls the quantum aspect of our being ("soul") |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 31, 2023 15:37:20 GMT -5
To step back, I read a lot of Alan Watts in my 20s, so I knew all about nonduality. So I decided to explore it. A thought experiment is done in the mind. Example, Einstein is famous for his thought experiments. As a teenager he imagined what it would be like to ride on a beam of light. Eventually, out of this, he developed {Special) Relativity. So, to see if I was separate, I imagined myself in an icebox (it could have been any sealed box, an icebox came to mind, probably as sometimes kids trap themselves in an old abandoned icebox-refrigerator). Pretty quick I saw I needed air-oxygen, so no, there is no separation. I could write you pages and pages about my further explorations. I took it all the way up to "God", we can't live without God-Source. And the why of that connects to entropy. So I saw that, yes, nonduality is the case. I just filed that away. Here, I should have left it as that. But sdp tries to be meticulously honest, so I wrote, I am not a NDist without qualification, or, I am a NDist with qualification. It's a technical predilection, why I am a pan entheist and not a pantheist (nonduality is basically pantheism). But everybody only remembers the technicality. So, basically, for the record, as I've said literally probably a hundred times, I have no problem with nonduality, I'm basically a NDist (but not without qualification). But no SR-TR here, I haven't had the lightning bolt. So, sdp in a sealed box was an imaginary experiment. We need air-oxygen, water, food. Food essentially comes from the sun, through photosynthesis....and that turns into pages and pages... Basically, if you want to make an apple pie, from scratch, you have to start with a Big Bang, and that's just the physics, then you get into metaphysics... Soz Pilgrim, give it to me in Tenka Terms and Conditions .. You imagined you were in an ice box, and you saw that you needed air and oxygen so from that you concluded there was no separation. This is based upon the human organism needs oxygen in order to survive the human experience? There was a oneness between you and the need for oxygen? Going to go red faced in shame here if what you said was abundantly clear Yes. And then I extrapolated that to the deepest aspect of our being. We-can't-exist unless we are tied-to-Source. ND. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 31, 2023 15:47:16 GMT -5
It has its place and function, and serves the individuation well enough, especially at the funny farm! It works betterer without all the existential bugs of the beta version. Seems to me, the mind can't deal the razor's edge. Say more, please. |
|
