|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 1, 2024 6:54:20 GMT -5
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. It seems you are confusing here with Here, that little-explored space (by most of humanity, anyway) prior to engaging mind. Maybe you can ask the 'so called deceased' about it, since they might express something closer to your liking, or in Tenka Talk. Just an idea. If you are an expression of what YOU are, then it seems you would get that that is what the dream metaphor is about. Maybe you already get that and just enjoy poopooing figurative language as an expression. I remember you saying you hate metaphors.  Dunno, and it's not my problem. Applying to Plotinus Model (As an ongoing attempt to clarify misunderstandings. I can drop it altogether if it is not of any help. Not a problem; just an attempt. I understand most attempts fail miserably.  ) 1- self (most are SVP-identified in this area, and haven't ever transcended the limited POV), while some struggle with the realizations of 'beyond' and still get confused via the conditioned thoughts. 2- My general idea of 'so called deceased', though I haven't lucidly had a chat with them outside of dreams with them. I can expand on my own 'experiences' as such though. Maybe you can provide some insight on the kinds of things they say; I'd be curious to hear it. Note: Shady blueish vertical lines- Where communication with these 'so called deceased' might be on such a model. Maybe you have a better idea... 3- Where 'individuation' begins in a theoretical sense, and continues emanating further down into 'mind'. It's all ND, and the distinctions are made within mind in the emanations from Source. Dunno if this helps. Provide feedback if you like. Platonism is mostly dual, but Plotinus is considered the grandaddy of NeoPlatonism and is considered a bit more on the ND side of things by some. I'm just playing with the concepts here. But again, I can just drop it.  I am not sure why you replied to my post to the Pilgrim in highlighting my misunderstandings by attaching a illustration of Plontinus's theory. Not that I mind, it's just I am pulling a bit of a face thinking what did you get from my post to the Pilgrim. What are you basing my supposed misunderstandings from? Your theories? The Pilgrims? All the other forum members or just Plontinus? Why do you see me having the misunderstandings and it not being all the other's? Because the theory you present is believed more than some other theory? Just asking, it's something a long the lines with Laffy and not believing in conceptual beliefs but will present a conceptual belief to make a point that isn't true or any truer than any other. My experience all lots of different dimensional energies has been ongoing for a few decades now, from elementals to E.T's I am not sure where they fit with the illustration, if I get time I will have a look, it is my last day off work so from tomorrow onwards I won't have the headspace to give any attention to it. I will say though that certain individual souls even though they have transcended the physical plane are not of the high mind at all. Some are, some are not. Some are really dense for use of a better word in their energy. You see this is why vibrations and frequencies really do come into the equation which reflects one's light. I mainly get snippets from those that come from spirit, I have journals of their visitations, some come on their birth or death anniversaries as conformation, some are picked up by other's in my circle also, many of them work with me in specific fields, some prophets work on my premonitions. Like just the other day when I get en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Francis_Richter from spirit come by I know there is going to be an earthquake. Japans earthquake was no surprise. There is too much to go into any of this really and this type of talk doesn't go down too well with other's here. It's the first time in a long time that I have really spoke about it. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 1, 2024 7:33:38 GMT -5
Seems to me, the mind can't deal the razor's edge. Say more, please. The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 10:57:09 GMT -5
E' and I discussed that same conclusion about how these dialogs have likely all happened many many times in the past. An interesting contemplation is to consider everything you've said/written in the context of those people from whom you learned to speak and write. They, in turn, learned to speak and write from someone other group that preceded them. Projecting this back, through time, go back far enough, and there was noone who had the facility of speech. So, everything you've said and written is a continuation, in a long chain stretching backward to the first group in that line who had that capability. It's all really, just one looooooooooong conversation. We tend to arbitrarily divide it up.  I missed a lot of such dialogues, so I'm glad you brought it up. Indeed, how you've stated it here reminds me of how I've expressed the concept of uni-verse (as one ongoing song), or in the beginning was the Word (to my Bible beater audience ). Btw, I've stumbled upon the oldest civilizational pointing to ND I've found yet (1500 BC). But, as I've been wandering far more than enough into conceptual weeds, culture, and history recently on the board, I figured I'd come back around to it some other time. Interestingly, the ideas do mesh well with some of the present topics being brought up (of course  ) , but again, it's just historical linguistic stuff that might detract from (sometimes) needed intensity.  Hey, I'm interested. My superficial knowledge on this is that the Upanishads are old. Never read them, couldn't find a good online source.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 10:58:47 GMT -5
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? You wrote this: ZD finally got you, and now he says Tenka just uses different language. But zd has been expressing that for some time now. By my recollection, perhaps two or three years. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:02:10 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. Diaper guy actually said this?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 1, 2024 11:04:32 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? "Never mind the mind. If its source is sought, it will vanish." - Sri Ramona Mahashish |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:08:42 GMT -5
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 It reads like Klingon to ya' 'cause ya' never climbed the pole. First of all, I've qualified belief, with existential. So, it's not about questioning the truth of 2+2=4 or whether grass is green or ya' get wet when it rains. Although, some people are into questioning what it is that they know and why, outside of an existential context, and these are the people who are more likely to climb the pole. Up there, with all existential belief suspended, it gets confusing, and it is important before taking the step off to avoid the temptation to quell the confusion with some comfy cozy concepts that make you feel all nice inside. But, step off in purity of suspension and you land in clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:09:28 GMT -5
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. Dude, ya' "lol"'d at "burning at the Zen stake'. 'sok, no thought crime, but own it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:23:37 GMT -5
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. What? All beliefs are conceptual. "self" can mean many things, "illusion" means something very specific when I use it. As in:
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 Would most people agree with "there is only what I am/we are"? My hunch that most people's sense of personhood is an illusion is based on my hunch that they wouldn't. Existential belief is about .. well .. you know .. existence. It's beliefs that explain the existential question, which has many forms, such as "what is the source of thought/emotion?", "what happens when I die?" or "how can it be that there is no existential separation between us when, you are not me, and I am not you"? Now, I won't deny that this sounds like a belief, but it's not quite that simple. I have an absence of existential belief. My belief that others are not absent these beliefs is based on what I hear them say or reading what they write. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 1, 2024 11:25:06 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. Diaper guy actually said this? This is tricky mental kungfu territory where you have to tread very carefully, logically and linguistically speaking, one misstep and you fall off the blue cliff finding yourself in the brambles of mind-enlightenment territory. And given the sometimes atrocious English translations of the Ramana dialogs, I wouldn't bet on either side of the argument. However, at the end of the day, Ramona taught the no-creation theory of TAV. And metaphysically speaking, there's a difference between "to exist" and "to be". Being refers to subject (Self), existing refers to objects (selves). But it's doubtful that his translators' understanding went that far. Anyway... "There is neither creation nor destruction, Neither destiny nor free-will, Neither path nor achievement: This is the final truth." - RM
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:34:03 GMT -5
It's like my niece, who I'm now obligated to imagine as my nephew, brought a friend over to Christmas dinner, who is observably a man, but was introduced as 'she' and I was told she's a woman. Maybe they think what they imagine is observable because they are mentally ill, but everyone else is just pretending. I've assessed it's probably better for me to pretend as well because I don't want to create rifts in the family, but I know how the male/female thing works in nature, and that woman busts nuts.
Most people, if not all, undergo the delusion that what they take-to-be-themselves is actually themselves, but one day they notice, That's not me after all. Hence they understand the self-delusion and grok what has to be renounced. If a person has not noticed that, it's hard to understand because they can't fully distinguish the one aware from the one who they are convinced is 'me'. I've had long, and generally amicable, conversations with several transpeople on twitter recently. I am sensitive to what's going on with them, and choose my language carefully. It doesn't always go well, but you can't win them all. The subject fascinates me because it is centred around the idea of 'identity', a conversation we have here very often. Their philosophy is very convoluted, very confusing, and if they weren't "allied" with each other, they would notice that their narratives often don't match up. I've generally tried to talk a bit about how categories are created, how we identify with those categories, and form a personal sense of 'who we are' based on that identification. One very interesting and smart person agreed with me, but believed that this 'sense' is utterly fixed....i.e there's nothing we can do about it, and medical transition is the solution, if their 'fixed sense' doesn't match their biology. I went on to talk a bit about my experience with advaita, Buddhism etc in relation to identification, the volitional 'I' etc. She was balanced enough to listen, but there's a bit of irony in the scepticism shown towards my own subjective experience. I'm sure you made the right choice in going along with it. Adventurous! You can sometimes be a very patient man.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 11:47:47 GMT -5
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. It seems you are confusing here with Here, that little-explored space (by most of humanity, anyway) prior to engaging mind. Maybe you can ask the 'so called deceased' about it, since they might express something closer to your liking, or in Tenka Talk. Just an idea. If you are an expression of what YOU are, then it seems you would get that that is what the dream metaphor is about. Maybe you already get that and just enjoy poopooing figurative language as an expression. I remember you saying you hate metaphors. Dunno, and it's not my problem. Applying to Plotinus Model (As an ongoing attempt to clarify misunderstandings. I can drop it altogether if it is not of any help. Not a problem; just an attempt. I understand most attempts fail miserably. ) 1- self (most are SVP-identified in this area, and haven't ever transcended the limited POV), while some struggle with the realizations of 'beyond' and still get confused via the conditioned thoughts. 2- My general idea of 'so called deceased', though I haven't lucidly had a chat with them outside of dreams with them. I can expand on my own 'experiences' as such though. Maybe you can provide some insight on the kinds of things they say; I'd be curious to hear it. Note: Shady blueish vertical lines- Where communication with these 'so called deceased' might be on such a model. Maybe you have a better idea... 3- Where 'individuation' begins in a theoretical sense, and continues emanating further down into 'mind'. It's all ND, and the distinctions are made within mind in the emanations from Source. Dunno if this helps. Provide feedback if you like. Platonism is mostly dual, but Plotinus is considered the grandaddy of NeoPlatonism and is considered a bit more on the ND side of things by some. I'm just playing with the concepts here. But again, I can just drop it. Haven't followed up on Plotinus yet. The diagram reminds me of Ken Wilbur's model and the Jane Roberts material. Interesting. Wrote some stuff on here about angels and demons and channeling a few months back now. Bottom line was that people have many ways of coming to terms with the myriad potential non-local experiences and woo-woo's that cannot otherwise be denied as figgymints of imagination or hallucination. The upper part of the visual reminds me of a diagram posted on here many years back of someone trying to interpret Niz, and his use of "absolute" and "supreme". It also reminds me of what I perceive is a common misconception that sometimes gets joked about as the "oneness blob", and why Advaita translates into not-two instead of "one". The trickster mind objectifies oneness, and then has thoughts about that object. Similar to how mathematicians treat "infinity" (heh heh what a shit show that is! (metaphysically speaking) ). Anyways, I promise to do my homework now! Certainly see the potential ties to the Gnostics a bit more clearly just based on the diagram though. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 1, 2024 12:02:22 GMT -5
Diaper guy actually said this? This is tricky mental kungfu territory where you have to tread very carefully, logically and linguistically speaking, one misstep and you fall off the blue cliff finding yourself in the brambles of mind-enlightenment territory. Yes, Niz once made a distinction between "existence", and "being". Thanks for the RM quote, very consistent with what I know of what he's supposed to have said. And the fourth line could be from right out of either of the Heart or Diamond Sutra's, btw. Intellect can come to understand this quote as the limits of episteme, in philosophical terms. That's come up in the megathreads before, I think you referred to it as Philosophy 101 and translates roughly as "there is no meaning" or "no ideas are ultimately true". I'm hopeful for anyone who arrives at that understanding. Just because it's skin deep doesn't mean it isn't an opportunity. ... but yeah, they have to step off the kung-fu sparring matt. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 1, 2024 15:30:28 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. Diaper guy actually said this? No just the rumba part. He was an aficionado like zd. Kidding, just the first sentence, first paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jan 1, 2024 15:32:19 GMT -5
The mind needing to be informed that it's not a separate entity is a bit awkward, right? "Never mind the mind. If its source is sought, it will vanish." - Sri Ramona MahashishGrandma is off his meds again. |
|
)
