|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 6, 2024 19:46:48 GMT -5
I don't have to go treasure hunting here. Anything that is said will be constructed through a belief system that is conditional, based upon what one believes to be true. Okay, let's use your thoughts about burning everything in a Zen style fashion. This which is reflected upon what is said conceptually. Prior to having any understanding of what anything means or refers too, there cannot be something that relates to that which can be made to be in someway not associated. I understand we don't see eye to eye here and that is okay, butt you are in some respects trying to wiggle it around to fit somehow based upon I don't perhaps understand what you are meaning by something or other. I understand perfectly well that there is either beyond a conditioned concept or not. It's when one wants to somehow merge the two and make something acceptable as a pointer even though one wants to burn what is pointed too because it is a conditioned, conceptual belief. Who asked you to go treasure hunting? In this dialog I've explained the distinction between belief and existential belief. I don't disagree that your ideas about conditions and filters apply to ideas that revolve around nonduality pointing, such as the flagpole koan. Butt this picture you paint of a wiggler is a self portrait, 'cause you wrote this: as soon as you put that into words it has to filter through your existential beliefs existential beliefs? Be specific. Or wiggle some more. Either way. I don't mind.  At a guess...and I'm questioning whether I should get involved.....I think T is saying that the explanation as to why you don't have an existential belief, would constitute existential belief. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 6, 2024 19:53:29 GMT -5
OK. I think it's fair to say you think it's all a farce, and everyone is just repeating nonsense ad nauseum. All Good, mate. It's easy enough to understand why. Following through tends to turn things inside out and back a bit, and it's not always fun. If you are interested and/or prefer to depersonalize the look a bit more, there's a history to the realization (at least as far as what has been written down), and many have said that it is actually the core of many of the great traditions. Some that realized what's pointed to have been revered, deified, crucified, or ex-communicated, depending on the prevailing culture of the time. Others have just gone on and lived quiet, peaceful lives with a sense of simply Knowing. I loves ya, mate. I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. The 'existential' truth, has to be taken as true by virtue or definition of what it is. The truth of it, is built into the knowing of it. It's odd in that way. Now, one doesn't have to accept it as true, but then one can't experience the knowing of it. It's why I use the word 'faith' to talk about it. It's pure faith, experienced as truth. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 6, 2024 19:59:08 GMT -5
Who asked you to go treasure hunting? In this dialog I've explained the distinction between belief and existential belief. I don't disagree that your ideas about conditions and filters apply to ideas that revolve around nonduality pointing, such as the flagpole koan. Butt this picture you paint of a wiggler is a self portrait, 'cause you wrote this: What existential beliefs? Be specific. Or wiggle some more. Either way. I don't mind. At a guess...and I'm questioning whether I should get involved.....I think T is saying that the explanation as to why you don't have an existential belief, would constitute existential belief. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 6, 2024 20:04:11 GMT -5
At a guess...and I'm questioning whether I should get involved.....I think T is saying that the explanation as to why you don't have an existential belief, would constitute existential belief. I'm not passing opinion either way, and I could be wrong, in which case we'll scrub my message and your facepalm, and rewrite history, as per today's fashion! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 6, 2024 20:50:10 GMT -5
Perhaps I am not clear on what you think is fcucked up about ND. I have no idea what ND handbook you're referring to, but it sounds like you think of it as a list of rules or what can be said that is true (as opposed to what is not true), so just leave that aside. That is, pointers are not the Truth being pointed to, nor are they pointing to what one can or cannot do (or believe) after realizing Truth. I think this is where your rub is. I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet. From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk. It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth. You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness. It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove. I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness. I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates. There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said. The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised. I am not having a rant here, I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all . My first mystical experience, kind of Chuang Tzu-butterfly man-like. I was about five (actually, this would be my second mystical experience). We were coming back from the beach. I was laying down in the back seat on the floorboard, the middle hump was my pillow. I woke up, 'out of it'. I had been 'some where' or I was 'some where', I wasn't sure, which. But I knew either where 'I was supposed to be', or where I was. So I shouted: Are pots and pans really true!!! Turned out, I was in the right place, in the real world, because pots and pans, here, are true (real). Honestly, I can hear myself shouting it, in memory.  In Glimpses of Truth, Gurdjieff told a newcomer, I'm speaking to you in language that you can understand. If I spoke to you, precisely, you'd think I was crazy. In another place someone asked Gurdjieff what he taught. He answered: I teach that when it rains, the sidewalks get wet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2024 21:55:28 GMT -5
OK. I think it's fair to say you think it's all a farce, and everyone is just repeating nonsense ad nauseum. All Good, mate. It's easy enough to understand why. Following through tends to turn things inside out and back a bit, and it's not always fun. If you are interested and/or prefer to depersonalize the look a bit more, there's a history to the realization (at least as far as what has been written down), and many have said that it is actually the core of many of the great traditions. Some that realized what's pointed to have been revered, deified, crucified, or ex-communicated, depending on the prevailing culture of the time. Others have just gone on and lived quiet, peaceful lives with a sense of simply Knowing. I loves ya, mate. I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. "They didn't" ... Or, maybe they did. The accounts ring similar to me. The so-called differences are what I'd expect if a non-verbal reality, beyond language, were realized by different minds, in different cultures, different histories, different languages.
You can understand this by analogy - look at something in the world, and notice how two different people might describe that same thing in wildly different styles. They might highlight different aspects or angles, or use different modes of expression - realism, poetry, analogy, parable, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 22:13:01 GMT -5
OK. I think it's fair to say you think it's all a farce, and everyone is just repeating nonsense ad nauseum. All Good, mate. It's easy enough to understand why. Following through tends to turn things inside out and back a bit, and it's not always fun. If you are interested and/or prefer to depersonalize the look a bit more, there's a history to the realization (at least as far as what has been written down), and many have said that it is actually the core of many of the great traditions. Some that realized what's pointed to have been revered, deified, crucified, or ex-communicated, depending on the prevailing culture of the time. Others have just gone on and lived quiet, peaceful lives with a sense of simply Knowing. I loves ya, mate. I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. The first few paragraphs (and maybe the conclusion) reads to me like a rendition of Plato’s forms theory: “We thus know about such things prior to any sense experience we have or could have about them. This knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori. ” Plato is an example of a rationalist. As such, it sounds to me like Gestalt Theory, as you’re alluding to often, can fall in the same dualism that a lot of Platonism devolved into, either while still alive or afterwards as folks studied him. Hell, even Plato himself had to make up chora/space to bring it all together (see Timaeus), but there’s a lot that I still do not know, I’m sure. It is said that even he was not clear on it, but was making a logical jump to open up a participatory space for exploring truth, which he was keen on. I'm cool with the participatory intention, to be fair, but to me, it is also indicative of mentation, and not so much as realization. I could be wrong and have only a limited reading/study on his philosophy in translations (good/bad) and via others’ interpretations. Plotinus, on the other hand, though he just saw his own philosophy as an extension of Platonism, seems to be more resolute in his The One and/or uses of flow via transcendence and emanation, ultimately in/as The One. To me, that’s a big difference (i.e., seems to point to a realization of sorts), and it was reported by his student that he has ‘gone into it’ (or something like that) at least 4 times that he (the student) could recall. I do not know wtf that is supposed to mean being that it was reported by another person, but that’s why I’d be interested in talking to Plotinus himself. In my own experience, discussions about distinguishing Nous and The One can be either overly direct and/or lost on those trying to understand. In discussing it with someone who can sense what's being pointed to, it wouldn't matter, because where there are agreements or disagreements on finer points would just be known to be mind stuff (like preferences or hashing out linguistic devices). I sense Baba Plotinus would recognize that with a decent poke session, based on what I presently understand him to mean in the synopsis of his expressions of/model for/pointing to The One (i.e., Truth). So, that brings us to your approach via gestalts. Your interpretations of Truth is that it must be many; whereas, I’d say one’s approach to (search for) Truth and ITS emanations may appear as many, but not Truth ITSELF. You are more involved with the gestalt stuff, so maybe you can help explore its potential value. I read through Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change to get a bit of a grasp of your preferred approach to these discussions. When I read it, I noticed certain spots that gave opportunities or openings for potential insights/realization, while at the same time, they could be clouded by the resistances mentioned. I'm curious about what aspects of the model can be useful, misunderstood, limited, etc and/or where you think it negates the potential for an ND perspective. You could even start a new thread where the discussion would be more consolidated. I’d be interested to hear your take on it, as well as others’ perspectives as a healthy discussion. Again, I'll try to get back on occasion, but may be sporadic. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 22:28:52 GMT -5
I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress.If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. . Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 23:04:21 GMT -5
I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet. From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk. It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth. You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness. It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove. I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness. I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates. There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said. The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised. I am not having a rant here, I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all . My first mystical experience, kind of Chuang Tzu-butterfly man-like. I was about five (actually, this would be my second mystical experience). We were coming back from the beach. I was laying down in the back seat on the floorboard, the middle hump was my pillow. I woke up, 'out of it'. I had been 'some where' or I was 'some where', I wasn't sure, which. But I knew either where 'I was supposed to be', or where I was. So I shouted: Are pots and pans really true!!! Turned out, I was in the right place, in the real world, because pots and pans, here, are true (real). Honestly, I can hear myself shouting it, in memory. In Glimpses of Truth, Gurdjieff told a newcomer, I'm speaking to you in language that you can understand. If I spoke to you, precisely, you'd think I was crazy. In another place someone asked Gurdjieff what he taught. He answered: I teach that when it rains, the sidewalks get wet. I love road trip insights and mystical experiences. Had a few of them meself as a kid on the 7hr drives to see Nanaw and Papaw. And I've slept on that hump and remember loving the warmth in December. Then there was the sitting in the back of the Vista Cruiser in the pop up seats they had, looking up at the rear window, watching the highway dashed lines traveling in reverse in the reflection, thinking, "Are we really going anywhere?" It sank in a good bit, but I eventually did get the itch to get up and took a look. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 6, 2024 23:22:38 GMT -5
I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. "They didn't" ... Or, maybe they did. The accounts ring similar to me. The so-called differences are what I'd expect if a non-verbal reality, beyond language, were realized by different minds, in different cultures, different histories, different languages. You can understand this by analogy - look at something in the world, and notice how two different people might describe that same thing in wildly different styles. They might highlight different aspects or angles, or use different modes of expression - realism, poetry, analogy, parable, etc. Yes. Bring your perspective, Matsuda. I'm curious. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 7, 2024 2:38:00 GMT -5
I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. The first few paragraphs (and maybe the conclusion) reads to me like a rendition of Plato’s forms theory: “We thus know about such things prior to any sense experience we have or could have about them. This knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori. ” Plato is an example of a rationalist. As such, it sounds to me like Gestalt Theory, as you’re alluding to often, can fall in the same dualism that a lot of Platonism devolved into, either while still alive or afterwards as folks studied him. Hell, even Plato himself had to make up chora/space to bring it all together (see Timaeus), but there’s a lot that I still do not know, I’m sure. It is said that even he was not clear on it, but was making a logical jump to open up a participatory space for exploring truth, which he was keen on. I'm cool with the participatory intention, to be fair, but to me, it is also indicative of mentation, and not so much as realization. I could be wrong and have only a limited reading/study on his philosophy in translations (good/bad) and via others’ interpretations. Plotinus, on the other hand, though he just saw his own philosophy as an extension of Platonism, seems to be more resolute in his The One and/or uses of flow via transcendence and emanation, ultimately in/as The One. To me, that’s a big difference (i.e., seems to point to a realization of sorts), and it was reported by his student that he has ‘gone into it’ (or something like that) at least 4 times that he (the student) could recall. I do not know wtf that is supposed to mean being that it was reported by another person, but that’s why I’d be interested in talking to Plotinus himself. In my own experience, discussions about distinguishing Nous and The One can be either overly direct and/or lost on those trying to understand. In discussing it with someone who can sense what's being pointed to, it wouldn't matter, because where there are agreements or disagreements on finer points would just be known to be mind stuff (like preferences or hashing out linguistic devices). I sense Baba Plotinus would recognize that with a decent poke session, based on what I presently understand him to mean in the synopsis of his expressions of/model for/pointing to The One (i.e., Truth). So, that brings us to your approach via gestalts. Your interpretations of Truth is that it must be many; whereas, I’d say one’s approach to (search for) Truth and ITS emanations may appear as many, but not Truth ITSELF. You are more involved with the gestalt stuff, so maybe you can help explore its potential value. I read through Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change to get a bit of a grasp of your preferred approach to these discussions. When I read it, I noticed certain spots that gave opportunities or openings for potential insights/realization, while at the same time, they could be clouded by the resistances mentioned. I'm curious about what aspects of the model can be useful, misunderstood, limited, etc and/or where you think it negates the potential for an ND perspective. You could even start a new thread where the discussion would be more consolidated. I’d be interested to hear your take on it, as well as others’ perspectives as a healthy discussion. Again, I'll try to get back on occasion, but may be sporadic. . I haven't read the books or the authors you mentioned, so I can't express any opinion on them. If you're interested, I could probably answer some specific questions about my take on those concepts. In my view, nondualistic models are not only distorted views of the wider reality, but they actually look in the opposite direction that we should do. On the other hand, recently reefs recommended a Wei Wu Wei booklet (45 pages). I started with the intention to read / browse it, knowing that my views are different, and having no expectation for the book to change them, as my current method of exploring reality doesn't include the understanding or adopting of others' views. The first chapter, that I quoted from earlier today to sdp, was about how to approach such an exploration, and it was in general in agreement with mine: leave aside all your beliefs and expectations. Unfortunately, WWW didn't apply his own recommendation in regard to nondualism, and to the masters he valued (Buddha, Maharishi, ...). Everybody has his limitations ... My understanding is that WWW formed his views from interpreting old dogmas, and with no intentional direct tapping of his own knowledge guidance while in altered states of consciousness. From the second chapter, I faced the dilemma of how to deal with the overwhelming discrepancy between his and my views. After the first few pages I made an attempt to focus more on what seemed to be in agreement, as the rest was getting tiring, and obviously distorted (even from an indulgent perspective). Pretty soon I dropped the book. After a few days, during one of my sessions with my inner guidance, I explored what to do about WWW's book. I got that either way I proceed (continue to read it, or drop it) isn't important. It doesn't matter what WWW wrote, or intended to say, but only what I intuitively interpret from what I read. This was like an aha!, but it was just a reminder of what I already knew about how to approach any text or event, after having forgotten it for a moment. I continued this way. Interestingly, the book started with a point I was in good agreement, went through the rest of it with considerations that I disagreed with, and ended with a consideration I got some good agreement (as I interpreted it) about the physical being the expression of the inner reality, and only that, even as WWW expressed it in other (distorted) terms, following a contorted reasoning. In summary, the book started from a correct basis (the approach), went through an erroneous biased reasoning process, and reached a correct conclusion (although incorrectly formalized). I'd say that, without being aware of that, WWW was actually guided by his inner guidance, in spite of his conscious efforts (erroneous reasoning and bias). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 7, 2024 6:06:53 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. At the level of soul, English is not spoken, nor any conceptual language. We take physical birth because the only way to learn, really, is the school of hard knocks. And the organism is a [an al]chemical laboratory. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 7, 2024 6:24:36 GMT -5
I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet. From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk. It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth. You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness. It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove. I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness. I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates. There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said. The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised. I am not having a rant here, I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all . It’s the individual life force that is if you like a spark of ‘what you are’ be it referred to God, Source or whatever word suits. You see things just don’t arise in consciousness and can’t simply be empty appearances. One has to understand what a person constitutes and comprises of. This is why I started a thread reflecting the nature of all appearances. If one like yourself and other Non Dualists only believes that a person reflects a SVP then you’re confined to that space. Likewise those that speak of everything is a dream or an illusion of sorts where every concept needs to be burnt gives one very little wiggle room when trying to uphold their premise. I see at times such a premise is self negating. The individual person that is not separate from everything comprises of many attributes that facilitates and allows individual experience to be had, that doesn’t necessarily have to reflect an illusory separate dream character that arises as an appearance only. The Soul or Spirit, that embodies the object or Awareness becoming Consciousness in the presence of an object as Niz or Ramana put it refers to the person and the person isn’t the issue. As reefs quoted the other day ' As at one time I am clothed, and at another time naked, so Brahman is at one time with attributes and at another without'. The person is Brahman clothed. And all this 100% knowings that are Truth and are not beliefs have to reflect what you are as an individual person and what you are that is beyond that. At present there doesn’t seem to be any Non Dualists here that speak about anything other than Consciousness, and again this is a conceptual belief, and not realised to be the case. So under scrutiny no matter what is said in reply about how much I am not understanding or on the same page, I do know that such foundations don’t support what peeps say at times. Plato said every human being is endowed with three qualities though in different proportions. He said these qualities are Reason, which resides in a person's head, Spirit which resides in a persons heart and Appetite which resides in a person's stomach. He said these are the three parts of the human soul.
To be clear here there are probably as many notions of the Spirit as there are hot dinners. I just plucked out one of the first quotes that came up to give another perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 7, 2024 6:50:19 GMT -5
I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet. From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk. It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth. You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness. It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove. I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness. I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates. There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said. The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised. I am not having a rant here, I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all . From my POV all there is is THIS, and although there's an individual body/mind organism with the screen name ZD, I know from direct experience that what I am is infinite, unified, and beyond birth or death. When I take a breath of air, I know that the air coming into the body is as much the real "Me" as the body most people imagine as ZD because what I am is infinite and includes all that IS. When this body dies, what I am will still be here because it is not confined to a body.
.. What you are that is not being confined to the mind-body doesn't make what you are that comprises of the mind-body any less 'what you are'. You are correct in that what you are will still be present after the physical experience ends, but one will have an etheric body, living in an etheric environment so although there is change, there is a constant. You will still have an individual experience. You will still have a personality that reflects your previous life and that can change when awareness comes to the fore that will bring further understanding of what you are. There is still a self reference. You see this is why it helps to have a different perspective other than comparing the physical experience with beyond mind. How many worlds and planes of existence are there? I don't know, How many mind-bodies can one experience? A causal body, an etheric body - How many more? I don't know. I don't hear any Non dualist speak along such lines because it isn't in their vocabulary. I haven't a clue from what I have read on forums such as these if such peeps vanish into a puff of non dual smoke and merge with the ocean. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 7, 2024 7:03:21 GMT -5
as soon as you put that into words it has to filter through your existential beliefs existential beliefs? Be specific. Or wiggle some more. Either way. I don't mind. Okay, now when you said for example 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.
This is an existential belief based upon what you believe yourself to be in reflection of what other's are that can write something for whatever you are that can read it. This is why I said it doesn't really matter what it is you say because whatever it is will reflect upon what you believe of yourself to be that is existing. It matter's not if one wants to proclaim that they don't have any existential beliefs at all for that in itself reflects one. I think this was along the same lines as what Andy interjected with. |
|
