|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 14, 2024 21:31:18 GMT -5
The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. I asked AI about this. Thought this part was interesting. ChatGPT: The statement seems to carry a somewhat disdainful tone towards non-dualists, suggesting that the one making the statement sees them as a bit "eccentric" for failing to grasp what the speaker perceives as a more sensible viewpoint. Within this dismissive stance, the claim that a non-dual pointer is just another belief is presented as a way to underscore the perceived absurdity of non-dual perspectives. It's as if the speaker is ridiculing the non-dualists, implying that their approach is nothing more than a convoluted form of conceptual belief, and that their failure to understand the speaker's viewpoint is a testament to the supposed lack of coherence in non-dual thinking. Question: What might one say to the writer of the statement about the difference between a conceptual belief and non-dual realization? ChatGPT: In engaging with the writer about the difference between a conceptual belief and a non-dual realization, you could express that while language and concepts are inherent tools in communication, a non-dual realization is often described as a direct, experiential understanding that transcends conceptual frameworks. Here's a response you might consider: "While I understand the concern about conceptual beliefs, it's crucial to differentiate between conventional beliefs rooted in conceptual thought and the nature of non-dual realization. Non-dual perspectives often emphasize direct, experiential understanding beyond the limitations of conceptual language. Unlike conventional beliefs that rely on conceptual frameworks, a non-dual realization is described as a direct apprehension of reality that transcends the confines of conceptualization. It's not merely another belief; instead, it's an invitation to experience and understand beyond the boundaries of traditional conceptual thinking."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2024 8:27:37 GMT -5
Everybody has to form a cultural self, as stated before, it's our link to the world (as stated before, if you don't form a cultural self, you are basically autistic, cut-off, to one extent or another). The ideal would be for the cultural self to be formed with not-so-tight a grip. So that way essence is very close underneath the cultural self. This is generally how-it-is with people who begin the spiritual journey. The ideal is to once again live through one's essence, this is like becoming like a little child. Jesus understood the whole journey, from the inside out. The ideal is to not have the wounds. The wounds cause a very dense and hard-shell cultural self. Blatant child abuse, hitting, by a parent, is the worst. The most crucial period is from birth to about age six. The language of a baby and a small child, is attention. You can't give a baby too much attention. Joseph Chilton Pearce in Magical Child has a very good explanation of how-things-should-be. At first, the Mother (or primary caregiver) is the matrix for the baby. As baby gets older, it's matrix expands, Father gets included. Then childhood friends...then society...eventually the whole universe becomes the matrix. This is the best case scenario. Most people get stuck somewhere on the way, a lesser matrix, they get stuck in. For some very nasty dudes, ISIS became their matrix. Some, Hamas. For pure individuation, the universe becomes your matrix. Yeah understand and pretty much agree. But that's why I have invited the scenario of a 'pure world', in which there's no cultural (false self). I'm really just trying to understand what it means to you, for an individual to be 'pure essence'. And the simplest way of finding that out, is for me to ask you to consider a hypothetical 'pure world'. Bashar often talks about his world, if you believe in channelings of that sort. This is Darryl talking here. Bashar here Very cool. Yes, I call this ~Jesus time~ (AKA Native American/Indian-time). I've had a couple of periods like this. One was in June 1991, I've written about a little. sN keeps referring to it as occurring in 1975ish, that wasn't the time-frame. About March 1975-March 1976 was my hell-period, basically bookended by two pretty serious suicide watches. I didn't consider it psychological, it was pretty-much a dark night of the soul (I didn't know that book then, read it some years later, but it almost perfectly tracked the dark night of sense, which is the first dark night. The second dark night is the dark night of the spirit, it's lot worse, I came to it later, had the book then, it helped, did some annotation in the book). In March 1976 I was at the bottom of the barrel, knew I couldn't live that way anymore. That year, I was literally a train wreck. Much of the time I lived by literally putting one foot in front of the other, I couldn't think two or 3 steps ahead. I gradually healed. Within 3 weeks of that bottom, I found my teacher who introduced me to the Gurdjieff teaching. Will say here, mostly from my experience with my teacher, when the others have asked me about the meaning of further, I've said at least a dozen times, meaning, expanding the constraints of time and space, literally. So I know what Bashar talks about, here, is possible. sdp, ...I've had a lot of pitfalls, the teaching is not defective, the "con artist" has played a good game. But sdp is the turtle in the story of the tortoise and the hare.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 17, 2024 16:32:50 GMT -5
Yeah understand and pretty much agree. But that's why I have invited the scenario of a 'pure world', in which there's no cultural (false self). I'm really just trying to understand what it means to you, for an individual to be 'pure essence'. And the simplest way of finding that out, is for me to ask you to consider a hypothetical 'pure world'. Bashar often talks about his world, if you believe in channelings of that sort. This is Darryl talking here. Bashar here Very cool. Yes, I call this ~Jesus time~ (AKA Native American/Indian-time). I've had a couple of periods like this. One was in June 1991, I've written about a little. sN keeps referring to it as occurring in 1975ish, that wasn't the time-frame. About March 1975-March 1976 was my hell-period, basically bookended by two pretty serious suicide watches. I didn't consider it psychological, it was pretty-much a dark night of the soul (I didn't know that book then, read it some years later, but it almost perfectly tracked the dark night of sense, which is the first dark night. The second dark night is the dark night of the spirit, it's lot worse, I came to it later, had the book then, it helped, did some annotation in the book). In March 1976 I was at the bottom of the barrel, knew I couldn't live that way anymore. That year, I was literally a train wreck. Much of the time I lived by literally putting one foot in front of the other, I couldn't think two or 3 steps ahead. I gradually healed. Within 3 weeks of that bottom, I found my teacher who introduced me to the Gurdjieff teaching. Will say here, mostly from my experience with my teacher, when the others have asked me about the meaning of further, I've said at least a dozen times, meaning, expanding the constraints of time and space, literally. So I know what Bashar talks about, here, is possible. sdp, ...I've had a lot of pitfalls, the teaching is not defective, the "con artist" has played a good game. But sdp is the turtle in the story of the tortoise and the hare. okay cool. I havent forgotten this conversation, but I'll come back to it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 19, 2024 14:43:13 GMT -5
Can you give me an example? I am not following you here. An example is the telepathic connection established by a fetus, then newborn, small child, with his parents and the physical environment / reality. We were, and are connected unconsciously to everything, and according to our individual level of evolvement interpret it, and use it. I agree in regards to evolvement for use of a better word, this is why I speak about frequencies and vibrations that reflect upon how we perceive ourselves. You spoke about beliefs stemming from other's so would you say there isn't a unique belief had that stems from yourself alone based upon your own unique experience. Say for instance you were in solitude for 10 years and had a string of realisations. Are they still references of other's? I suppose in a way whatever is established would be filtered through a conditioning that one is brought up on unless one breaks the mold, but then when contemplated upon we have to refer back to what was initially established.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 19, 2024 14:54:28 GMT -5
.. It is if we believe in the conceptual meaning of the word and it's not some kinda Truth that reflects in what we actually are. I don't know anyone who knows 100% what we are that is individuated is ______. You don't know. Anyone on the forums want to stick their neck out here and proclaim to know 100%? Ah, now you want to hypermind on "knowing". Aces. "Not-knowing" is a way, a part of a path. It's the smoke of the Zen fire you mocked, and the verve that drives one up the flagpole. It can also, come to an end. At that end, is an absence. Not really, I am just explaining that what you say is ineffable reflects a belief in what it conceptually means. Beyond the conceptual meaning you wouldn't know what ineffable refers too beyond the meaning of it. This is obvious. There has to be meaning to what is said and referred too. If one doesn't believe in all these conceptual references, then one can't say anything about anything, but you do. Just as any other N.D. peep does. I think this is so straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 19, 2024 14:59:46 GMT -5
The belief system is in effect prior to one stubbing their toe. If we want to talk about a split second between how pain receptors and thoughts are playing catch up with one another that doesn't negate the belief in that it's your toe and not mine that's been stubbed. How the body mind construction works doesn't have any bearing on one's belief system already in place. The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have? Hey, is that doooooooooofus guy I see comin' round the corner?? .... So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 19, 2024 15:04:42 GMT -5
The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. I asked AI about this. Thought this part was interesting. ChatGPT: The statement seems to carry a somewhat disdainful tone towards non-dualists, suggesting that the one making the statement sees them as a bit "eccentric" for failing to grasp what the speaker perceives as a more sensible viewpoint. Within this dismissive stance, the claim that a non-dual pointer is just another belief is presented as a way to underscore the perceived absurdity of non-dual perspectives. It's as if the speaker is ridiculing the non-dualists, implying that their approach is nothing more than a convoluted form of conceptual belief, and that their failure to understand the speaker's viewpoint is a testament to the supposed lack of coherence in non-dual thinking. Question: What might one say to the writer of the statement about the difference between a conceptual belief and non-dual realization? ChatGPT: In engaging with the writer about the difference between a conceptual belief and a non-dual realization, you could express that while language and concepts are inherent tools in communication, a non-dual realization is often described as a direct, experiential understanding that transcends conceptual frameworks. Here's a response you might consider: "While I understand the concern about conceptual beliefs, it's crucial to differentiate between conventional beliefs rooted in conceptual thought and the nature of non-dual realization. Non-dual perspectives often emphasize direct, experiential understanding beyond the limitations of conceptual language. Unlike conventional beliefs that rely on conceptual frameworks, a non-dual realization is described as a direct apprehension of reality that transcends the confines of conceptualization. It's not merely another belief; instead, it's an invitation to experience and understand beyond the boundaries of traditional conceptual thinking." It's a little odd that from a straightforward statement of fact that The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. Can conclude that is a disdainful tone towards non-dualists. Make no sense at all. Does AI know the difference between what is conceptual and what isn't without predudice?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 19, 2024 15:54:22 GMT -5
An example is the telepathic connection established by a fetus, then newborn, small child, with his parents and the physical environment / reality. We were, and are connected unconsciously to everything, and according to our individual level of evolvement interpret it, and use it. I agree in regards to evolvement for use of a better word, this is why I speak about frequencies and vibrations that reflect upon how we perceive ourselves. You spoke about beliefs stemming from other's so would you say there isn't a unique belief had that stems from yourself alone based upon your own unique experience. Say for instance you were in solitude for 10 years and had a string of realisations. Are they still references of other's? I suppose in a way whatever is established would be filtered through a conditioning that one is brought up on unless one breaks the mold, but then when contemplated upon we have to refer back to what was initially established. We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 19, 2024 21:13:15 GMT -5
I asked AI about this. Thought this part was interesting. ChatGPT: The statement seems to carry a somewhat disdainful tone towards non-dualists, suggesting that the one making the statement sees them as a bit "eccentric" for failing to grasp what the speaker perceives as a more sensible viewpoint. Within this dismissive stance, the claim that a non-dual pointer is just another belief is presented as a way to underscore the perceived absurdity of non-dual perspectives. It's as if the speaker is ridiculing the non-dualists, implying that their approach is nothing more than a convoluted form of conceptual belief, and that their failure to understand the speaker's viewpoint is a testament to the supposed lack of coherence in non-dual thinking. Question: What might one say to the writer of the statement about the difference between a conceptual belief and non-dual realization? ChatGPT: In engaging with the writer about the difference between a conceptual belief and a non-dual realization, you could express that while language and concepts are inherent tools in communication, a non-dual realization is often described as a direct, experiential understanding that transcends conceptual frameworks. Here's a response you might consider: "While I understand the concern about conceptual beliefs, it's crucial to differentiate between conventional beliefs rooted in conceptual thought and the nature of non-dual realization. Non-dual perspectives often emphasize direct, experiential understanding beyond the limitations of conceptual language. Unlike conventional beliefs that rely on conceptual frameworks, a non-dual realization is described as a direct apprehension of reality that transcends the confines of conceptualization. It's not merely another belief; instead, it's an invitation to experience and understand beyond the boundaries of traditional conceptual thinking." It's a little odd that from a straightforward statement of fact that The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. Can conclude that is a disdainful tone towards non-dualists. Make no sense at all. Does AI know the difference between what is conceptual and what isn't without predudice? I did mention that this was a part...but I didn't say of an exploration of your belief system. It examined a number of your comments and stated beliefs and this is where it ended up. What part of it do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2024 21:36:24 GMT -5
Ah, now you want to hypermind on "knowing". Aces. "Not-knowing" is a way, a part of a path. It's the smoke of the Zen fire you mocked, and the verve that drives one up the flagpole. It can also, come to an end. At that end, is an absence. Not really, I am just explaining that what you say is ineffable reflects a belief in what it conceptually means. Beyond the conceptual meaning you wouldn't know what ineffable refers too beyond the meaning of it. This is obvious. There has to be meaning to what is said and referred too. If one doesn't believe in all these conceptual references, then one can't say anything about anything, but you do. Just as any other N.D. peep does. I think this is so straightforward. Not so much, really. If it was a belief it would be quite effable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2024 21:44:32 GMT -5
The belief that the pain, is "mine"? Is that the "belief" you think I have? Hey, is that doooooooooofus guy I see comin' round the corner?? .... So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 20, 2024 3:16:55 GMT -5
So if a bloke came round your house and said I claim this to be my house and not yours, would you say, yer mate no worries, I don't have a belief in that the house is mine. So then he asks you for the money in your bank account, and you transfer it over to him cos you don't have a belief in that it is your money. Peeps who declare they don't have a belief in a mine or a me or a you doesn't wash with me unless their behaviour matches. There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:30:17 GMT -5
I agree in regards to evolvement for use of a better word, this is why I speak about frequencies and vibrations that reflect upon how we perceive ourselves. You spoke about beliefs stemming from other's so would you say there isn't a unique belief had that stems from yourself alone based upon your own unique experience. Say for instance you were in solitude for 10 years and had a string of realisations. Are they still references of other's? I suppose in a way whatever is established would be filtered through a conditioning that one is brought up on unless one breaks the mold, but then when contemplated upon we have to refer back to what was initially established. We are connected to everything at inner level, and that's how we get inputs and for beliefs, even in solitude, even in the womb. The way I see it, all realizations are beliefs, meaning they aren't truths. They are layers of assumptions based on which the self tentatively expands, not necessarily and always correctly, in which case beliefs' adjustment will follow. I suppose it's like the Borg and the one mind scenario in your eyes which I wouldn't disagree with in some respects. I was more asking if you believed that there could be a unique belief in something based upon a unique experience had that wasn't tainted by other's. Perhaps the term original thought might help, I mean someone has to get the ball rolling at some point I dare say for something to be adopted by millions in their belief system. A bit like the meaning of non Duality. It came from somewhere and then millions integrated it within their noggins.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:33:51 GMT -5
There he is (heh heh)! We already covered this ground recently here (and here). And did you notice this? Of course it's "my house", but ultimately that's just a concession to common-mind. Sometimes the concession is quite relevant, but it has no existential meaning. Notice how in the examples there is a house (while ownership is cited as the belief)? Not really. A previous example was given by another who referenced stubbing their toe. The belief in the toe is of the same context as the house. Ownership of both to varying degrees reflects the relationship of what you are that can experience a stubbed toe and ownership of a house. A belief system incorporates that relationship.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 20, 2024 7:42:28 GMT -5
It's a little odd that from a straightforward statement of fact that The thing here is that you are pointing to what is non-conceptual etc, but that is a conceptual belief isn't it. Can conclude that is a disdainful tone towards non-dualists. Make no sense at all. Does AI know the difference between what is conceptual and what isn't without predudice? I did mention that this was a part...but I didn't say of an exploration of your belief system. It examined a number of your comments and stated beliefs and this is where it ended up. What part of it do you disagree with? I don't find much of an interest dissecting something that another peep programmed into an AI programme based upon their beliefs to what Non Duality supposedly is and what other subjects mean to them. An AI programme only reflects that initial input, so if the beliefs are integrated into the programme AI can only respond in one way that reflects them beliefs as a foundation. The foundation of the programmer is the foundation of AI. What is regarded as disdainful and dismissive are reflections of the programmer.
|
|