|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2023 10:47:16 GMT -5
Yes, that's quite beautiful. The words of the Philokalia get very close, it's like mining for gold. You have to sort through a lot of words to get to the gold. But it's still really only outer teaching. But I know it comes from a true source because the emphasis is always attention, (IOW) attending. That's why I surmised it was sourced from an oral teaching, all the way back to Jesus, of course he had the gold. The Philokalia was preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church, monasticism. Later in the five volumes we get to hesychasm, the basic spiritual practice of monasticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But they understood Nous, the deeper levels of the mind. This could also be an advertisement, virtually unchanged, for the Gurdjieff teaching. The interesting thing is that you express and act like what is being discussed here (for the most part) or sometimes pointed to on the message is different. Only what's different is interesting and important. Nobody remembers when I say I 98% agree with you here. It's when I say I 2% disagree that everybody says, oh, you just don't understand. The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), but it shows the manifest world, expansion and contraction, ups and downs, Gopal's rollercoaster, Hamas vs Israel, Russia vs Ukraine. You know when I was a kid we watched this program called Doctor something, I'll have to search, sucks getting old, I used to be able to remember everything, Ben was his name. But every program the introduction had the doctor, I think the older teacher-doctor, doctor with weird name, write on a blackboard, with a symbol, and say: man, woman, birth, death, infinity. That was a little step in my beginning exploration about reality. Read the other post on the other thread. Ben Casey I dare say most people don't know the infinity symbol is a mobius strip. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2023 13:32:35 GMT -5
Listened to the OP in full. Very good. Why does this focus of concentration give pleasure? A baby lives through awareness, a baby IS awareness. The baby collects information about the world, a lot of in the form of information how parents and caregivers operate in-the-world, IOW, their selves. A baby and small child unconsciously copies their immediate caregivers, "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children to the 4th generation". Eventually the baby comes to consider that they themselves are the collected information-as-memory. This is the mish-mash web of self. Our attention and awareness get trapped in the memories we take to be the self. And these form a kind of velcro with hooks and mesh with attach us to the world, through the self which consists of information collected from-the-world, especially personal information, from parents and caregivers. When we can dwell only-in awareness, or attention, we are in fact who we actually are. There can't be a better ~place~. Nice video.
All this is incapsulated in the fairy tale of the Ugly Duckling.
There is another story I heard a while back. There was this rich lady who thought she could sing, thought she was an opera star in fact. Her money supported her illusions. It was an inside joke, nobody told her she couldn't actually sing. We delude ourselves into thinking we are something we are not, we come deluded, as ~we~ are formed before the memories we are formed-of. Some of us are lucky enough to know something is not quite right, about ourselves. Florence Foster Jenkins, true story. It's about a husband who wants to give his wife her dream. From the film:
All delusion is self-delusion, and comes from attachments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2023 10:19:38 GMT -5
I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Well, I’m not sure where you’ve found these Advaita dudes. Perhaps you’ve been scammed by fake ones, or by some ChatGPT pretender? First, none of us actual Advaita dudes say there’s no self. In fact, it’s a rather core premise that in fact there very much is self. Second, Advaita dudes in the know might tell you that there are multiple viewpoints used in the discourse, and in one of those viewpoints, the relative one, there is a soul which transmigrates. I see posts on this web forum about how the "separate person" is a mental illusion. I took "separate person" as synonymous with "self" (small s). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2023 10:33:17 GMT -5
I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Glad to see you posting here, and welcome. Have you realized this sense of 'no self, no person' spoken of, or are you mostly trying to connect the dots in an endeavor of logic chopping? All are welcome here, and it can be a wild ride. Some of both.
Thanks. I'm probably just passing through. I'm curious about a few things, and I like meditation, but these long treatises and debates I'm seeing here are not my thing. They induce a kind of dull fatigue.
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 8, 2023 12:42:01 GMT -5
Well, I’m not sure where you’ve found these Advaita dudes. Perhaps you’ve been scammed by fake ones, or by some ChatGPT pretender? First, none of us actual Advaita dudes say there’s no self. In fact, it’s a rather core premise that in fact there very much is self. Second, Advaita dudes in the know might tell you that there are multiple viewpoints used in the discourse, and in one of those viewpoints, the relative one, there is a soul which transmigrates. I see posts on this web forum about how the "separate person" is a mental illusion. I took "separate person" as synonymous with "self" (small s). Separate person is a sort of illusion, but just what sort of illusion it is is not something that can easily be reduced to saying "there is no self," even in the "smaller s" version of that idea. Rather, the idea is that the smaller-s self is not what it seems to be... and is in fact ultimately nothing other than Self. And further, if the individual self was not provisionally acknowledged in one of the discourses, then you couldn't have the idea of ignorance or realization either, which of course are core to advaita. Of course, ultimately, ignorance and realization ARE also illusions of a sort, but even that statement is itself made within a relative discourse. No statements can in fact be ultimately true. Truth is beyond words, including the words in this very sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2023 13:05:01 GMT -5
I see posts on this web forum about how the "separate person" is a mental illusion. I took "separate person" as synonymous with "self" (small s). Separate person is a sort of illusion, but just what sort of illusion it is is not something that can easily be reduced to saying "there is no self," even in the "smaller s" version of that idea. Rather, the idea is that the smaller-s self is not what it seems to be... and is in fact ultimately nothing other than Self. And further, if the individual self was not provisionally acknowledged in one of the discourses, then you couldn't have the idea of ignorance or realization either, which of course are core to advaita. Of course, ultimately, ignorance and realization ARE also illusions of a sort, but even that statement is itself made within a relative discourse. No statements can in fact be ultimately true. Truth is beyond words, including the words in this very sentence. That's an abstract mass of words, but I understood you, so...job done. Personally, I think it might have been a more straightforward read if left at the word 'advaita', but I can also see why you wanted to expand. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 8, 2023 15:20:01 GMT -5
Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Well even Ramana or Niz spoke about previous lifetimes had reflect one's requirement for effort or not. What that is that incarnates time and time again is a little vague from what I have witnessed from non duality types. In a way it's avoided like the plague or poo pooed off as something woo woo that belongs in the new age closet. Some non duality ideas are just missing the mark by a mile. There is no understanding of what comprises of what we are that experiences life as we do. It's either a dream had by an illusory peep that isn't really here, butt behaves like there is and argues the point that there isn't . |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2023 17:06:42 GMT -5
The interesting thing is that you express and act like what is being discussed here (for the most part) or sometimes pointed to on the message is different. Only what's different is interesting and important. Nobody remembers when I say I 98% agree with you here. It's when I say I 2% disagree that everybody says, oh, you just don't understand. The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), but it shows the manifest world, expansion and contraction, ups and downs, Gopal's rollercoaster, Hamas vs Israel, Russia vs Ukraine. You know when I was a kid we watched this program called Doctor something, I'll have to search, sucks getting old, I used to be able to remember everything, Ben was his name. But every program the introduction had the doctor, I think the older teacher-doctor, doctor with weird name, write on a blackboard, with a symbol, and say: man, woman, birth, death, infinity. That was a little step in my beginning exploration about reality. Read the other post on the other thread. Ben Casey I dare say most people don't know the infinity symbol is a mobius strip. Cool. I remember you writing the 98%/2% type of thang several times, but can't recall specifics. All good. Yes, I've always liked the mobius strip infinity dealio, especially once infinity was put into proper perspective.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 8, 2023 17:19:45 GMT -5
Glad to see you posting here, and welcome. Have you realized this sense of 'no self, no person' spoken of, or are you mostly trying to connect the dots in an endeavor of logic chopping? All are welcome here, and it can be a wild ride. Some of both.
Thanks. I'm probably just passing through. I'm curious about a few things, and I like meditation, but these long treatises and debates I'm seeing here are not my thing. They induce a kind of dull fatigue.
I getcha. I just approach coming here as being somewhat like hanging out at the Pnyx talking about perspectives. The general idea would be to do whatever practices you like, contemplate things at depth, and share or question about them in relation to what may have been realized. What kind of things would you prefer to talk about? There are some gifted communicators (not me, of course 🥴) and practitioners here, so just put any 'ole thing out there, and you'll likely get a reply. Of course, there are any manner of approaches, so replies may be varied, eventually splinter into sub-topics, etc. Many here have 'known each other' for a while, but no biggie. The dullness would likely wear off in the participation and feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 9, 2023 1:19:18 GMT -5
... The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), ... I think that there are an infinite number of all-that-is in an infinite consciousness-gestalt structure. You are the all-that-is of your cells. You are also an element in other all-that-is gestalts. There isn't only "One whole". Each probable-reality is an all-that-is. But all these matter little to what you came here for.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2023 7:50:49 GMT -5
... The yin~yang Tai Chi symbol is One Whole, but it shows two flows. No, there is nothing outside All That Is (the Whole Tai Chi symbol), ... I think that there are an infinite number of all-that-is in an infinite consciousness-gestalt structure. You are the all-that-is of your cells. You are also an element in other all-that-is gestalts. There isn't only "One whole".
Each probable-reality is an all-that-is. But all these matter little to what you came here for. I have said something similar for many a year where this non duality talk of there is only one, is so one dimensional and lacks any understanding of what the one and the many reflect. So we have the premise presented at times where there cannot be individuals because there is only one to begin with. What you are doesn't reflect one - it refers to there only being that. It doesn't limit what that is to one entity or non entity or whatever word suits. Even saying for examples sake there is only source or only God, or awareness, doesn't necessarily equate to one God, one awareness, one source. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 12:08:31 GMT -5
Well, I’m not sure where you’ve found these Advaita dudes. Perhaps you’ve been scammed by fake ones, or by some ChatGPT pretender? First, none of us actual Advaita dudes say there’s no self. In fact, it’s a rather core premise that in fact there very much is self. Second, Advaita dudes in the know might tell you that there are multiple viewpoints used in the discourse, and in one of those viewpoints, the relative one, there is a soul which transmigrates. I see posts on this web forum about how the "separate person" is a mental illusion. I took "separate person" as synonymous with "self" (small s). The illusion is one of existential separation. There are multiple ways to describe how oneness is the case to mind, or even to point to not-two. Many different basis and hints and shadows of that existential truth. And yet clearly, you are not me, and I am not you. That is the existential question, distilled. Tight and succinct intellectual definitions of the idea of a "self" can be useful. To a point. Beyond that point, however, it's best to keep it loose. And remain fluid. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 12:16:05 GMT -5
Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Seems to me that most of how Europeans have interpreted the Eastern idea of reincarnation is as distorted as the idea of a literal heaven and hell, although it's not just the Europeans that have done that, either. On the other hand, as an American I can attest to that take as influenced by my subconsciously conditioned aversion to the idea. Christianity favored a preciousness to the one life. Do-overs seem like a cop-out, after all. But that's just putting a "not" in front of a belief. The most interesting takes I've seen on it are that it is simply an expression of the notion of cyclicality and repeating patterns. A big picture, for instance, would be the Dream of Vishnu. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 12:19:14 GMT -5
Glad to see you posting here, and welcome. Have you realized this sense of 'no self, no person' spoken of, or are you mostly trying to connect the dots in an endeavor of logic chopping? All are welcome here, and it can be a wild ride. Some of both.
Thanks. I'm probably just passing through. I'm curious about a few things, and I like meditation, but these long treatises and debates I'm seeing here are not my thing. They induce a kind of dull fatigue.
.. "it's all so tiresome ..." |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2023 12:25:51 GMT -5
I see posts on this web forum about how the "separate person" is a mental illusion. I took "separate person" as synonymous with "self" (small s). Separate person is a sort of illusion, but just what sort of illusion it is is not something that can easily be reduced to saying "there is no self," even in the "smaller s" version of that idea. Rather, the idea is that the smaller-s self is not what it seems to be... and is in fact ultimately nothing other than Self. And further, if the individual self was not provisionally acknowledged in one of the discourses, then you couldn't have the idea of ignorance or realization either, which of course are core to advaita. Of course, ultimately, ignorance and realization ARE also illusions of a sort, but even that statement is itself made within a relative discourse. No statements can in fact be ultimately true. Truth is beyond words, including the words in this very sentence. the specific phrasing (minus "in fact") that the evil frog settled on in response to the the attempts to corner him about "truth" in the megathreads. |
|
