|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2024 23:49:41 GMT -5
Sure sure, the mall cop. But the flip-side is .. there's always somethin' goin' on!  .. and when ur not asleep, ur not asleep.  If the plebs that tortured Christ knew what was going on, they wouldn't have done it. I'd posit that as the moral of the story.
If you use vibrationally inaccurate stories to either reach a conclusion on how the universe works or to illustrate how the universe works, you'll end up with a conceptual pretzel. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 3, 2024 23:53:54 GMT -5
Sure, say something ambiguous like 'common sense and intuition', hope that someone says something elaborate, and then claim it's your idea  . I like it.  Reefs is highly ambiguous about LOA, but LOA is karma theory repackaged for the new age. It's not a different thing which is so much better. Karma theory is older, and LOA is newer, but it's just the same thing understood in different cultural contexts. LOA is karma in post industrial revolution, but it feels kinda dated now. It's more like a late 80's Louise Hay kinda vibe that died with The Secret in the early naughties . Maybe someone like Teal Swan could update it in the post-information era for gen-A. It's like I'm going through a Nietzsche phase. He used a Judeo-Christian trope to illustrate slave morality. The trope isn't relevant anymore, but slave morality continues in the virtue signals of wokeness and cancel culture. It's not two different things. It's the weaponisation of faux-morality in different contexts. Same in principle as karma and LOA. Same shit, different day.
Reefs LOA, in the final analysis, is a more generalized version of what you write in terms of non-reactivity in meditation. Beyond that, there are all these heavy-duty conceptual structures. Whenever there are such structures, there is the potential for both confusion, and wisdom. There is the potential for straw men, or genuine understanding and agreement to disagree. And I don't mean to imply that reefs' field is completely free of scarecrows on every day of the week. That seems about right. However, the question of all questions is, when Lolly talks about mindfulness and awareness, is he referring to the personal or the impersonal context? I'd say he is referring to the personal context and the false witness position, why else always bring it back to karma and practice in the end? There's no basis for either karma or practice in the impersonal context. So what I am pointing to and what Lolly is describing, in the final analysis, is still literally worlds apart. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 4, 2024 0:02:10 GMT -5
First of all, from the LOA perspective, it takes always two to tango. Which means there isn't really any room for a perpetrator-victim thinking (similar to Ramakrishna saying that God is the one who encourages the thief to break into a house and also the one who warns the owner of the house of thieves at the same time). Secondly, you attract by your state of being, not by your actions. So your actions matter much less than you might think. So you could do both, forget about it and get happy and you will attract a totally new relationship with that same person, or apologize for your misdeeds and attract a totally new relationship with that same person. It's not really about what your do, but about your state of being when you do it. So forget about karma. Focus on LOA instead. Karma is just a highly personalized and therefore distorted version of LOA. Your actions reflect your state of being. This is why an individual that has reached a certain state of awareness would not deliberately hurt another for example. A peep that is supposedly in a forever blissful state wouldn't harm a fly. You kant separate one's state of being from one's actions. I see Karma just as a result of how one feels from what one does. LOA still reflects there being someone present that can attract something. Can an illusory self attract anything at all lol? Mud only sticks to something. What does 'not deliberately hurting others' mean? You probably know the parable of the monk and the snake, right? For reference: Also, life is on continuous recycling process. You can't survive without hurting a fly or else you will be road kill yourself at some point. So, let's not be silly. And LOA works in the personal as well as in the impersonal context. So, no, you don't need a self. But you need one for LOK, because LOK works in the personal context only. But according to the anatta doctrine, there is no personal self, so this is where Buddhism gets silly. In TAV they solved that issue very elegantly by declaring LOK a merely provisional truth, i.e. something that is a useful concept or explanation at a certain level of understanding but not the ultimate truth, and so it will be discarded later as an unnecessary and unproven assumption as the understanding deepens. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 4, 2024 0:11:15 GMT -5
First of all, from the LOA perspective, it takes always two to tango. Which means there isn't really any room for a perpetrator-victim thinking (similar to Ramakrishna saying that God is the one who encourages the thief to break into a house and also the one who warns the owner of the house of thieves at the same time).Secondly, you attract by your state of being, not by your actions. So your actions matter much less than you might think. So you could do both, forget about it and get happy and you will attract a totally new relationship with that same person, or apologize for your misdeeds and attract a totally new relationship with that same person. It's not really about what your do, but about your state of being when you do it. So forget about karma. Focus on LOA instead. Karma is just a highly personalized and therefore distorted version of LOA. I don't have a problem in believing that there's a personal Andy and a personal tenka, so there are two individuals here in the mix, butt they are not separate from what we are that is in expression of individuality. So for me, there is someone who bashes someones head in and there is also someone whose head is bashed in. The whole notion of there is only one in my eyes is misconceived If that is misconceived then you don't understand your own mantra that "there is only what you are".  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 4, 2024 0:11:16 GMT -5
... ... And LOA works in the personal as well as in the impersonal context. ... What do you mean by impersonal and personal contexts? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 4, 2024 0:14:35 GMT -5
Then your question makes no sense. And actually, the anatta doctrine should dispel your confusion about there still being irritation post-SR, because it basically says that there is only pure functioning, or as ZD likes to say, only THIS. And that's also the A-H stream of consciousness model, i.e. there is only a stream of consciousness (Self, impersonal), but no individual clumps of consciousness (selves, personal). I accept there is irritation post SR, and it just means the reactive tendency is in play and ego is being perpetuated. Thus, there is a personal clump, though I presume ZD is aware of such antics and it can't become 'me'. Then we've cleared up that point. The mirage metaphor applies here. Seeing thru the mirage will not make the mirage go away, but it will keep you from riding out there to fill your canteen with water. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 4, 2024 0:24:02 GMT -5
But not all living things want to be happy, some would rather be right than happy. From the LOA perspective, when 'bad' things happen to 'good' people it's usually because they oppose or fight or want to rid the world of or want to overcome 'bad' things, i.e. that's where their focus is, and whatever you focus upon you eventually attract. So there's a big difference between trying to make the world less evil and trying to make the world even more gooder. On the surface, and intellectually, it may seem the same, but vibrationally speaking and on a feeling level, there's a huge difference. In karma theory, the desire to be rid of things is the aversion toward those things and volitions such as resistance, avoidance, clinging are incited. That exertion of volition is bad karma. The event to which one reacts, or the consequence of reacting is not karma. If the reaction/volition produces a potential for future outcomes, and you are adverse toward such outcomes, you get stuck in a cycle of karma, reacting, producing, reacting, producing - incessantly generating volition. My tendency is see all that playing out in the world and understand the 'cause', which is bad karma, but karma is the volition behind it; not the manifestations thereof. The resolution is stop doing that. Hence the meditation I describe is very specific and precise not because my way is the best, but because things work in a certain way - the same way for everyone.
Yes, volition is a mental overlay over pure functioning. So in a sense, if there is no self (anatta) and only a stream of consciousness, or pure functioning. Attachment to certain parts or aspects of that stream ('me' and 'mine') then are the only problem. But that doesn't affect the stream or the pure functioning, consciousness will always be streaming and functioning purely. So neither self nor karma are real in that sense. It's all a fiction. There is no self that is in bondage or is freed from bondage because there is no self in the first place. Which means there is no cause of bondage and also no liberation from bondage. Which is why all the dharmas are empty and not truth. So it seems to me that LOK, the 4truths and the 8fold path may actually be the lower teaching of the Buddha, sorta like an appetizer, while anatta is the higher teaching, the actual teaching of the Buddha. Because that's Advaita as taught in Vedanta and Taoism. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 4, 2024 0:33:46 GMT -5
... ... And LOA works in the personal as well as in the impersonal context. ... What do you mean by impersonal and personal contexts? Thanks. Personal is a perspective with a sense of doership, in serial time and space, separate from or interconnected with the world (separation). Impersonal is a perspective without a sense of doership, prior to time and space, not separate from the world but the world itself (oneness). Seth, for example, while beyond time and space, is still the personal perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 4, 2024 0:40:07 GMT -5
What do you mean by impersonal and personal contexts? Thanks. Personal is a perspective with a sense of doership, in serial time and space, separate from or interconnected with the world (separation). Impersonal is a perspective without a sense of doership, prior to time and space, not separate from the world but the world itself (oneness). Seth, for example, while beyond time and space, is still the personal perspective. Thanks. I don't understand. I hoped to be something I can relate to. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2024 4:00:42 GMT -5
Sin as generally conceived of misses the mark, but in principle there's still good and evil, just that it relates to pure intent or ill will. Taking the Jesus story to be true, he wasn't seething with ill will when he was being tortured. He basically understood that these people are miserable, so they emanate that all around. I think Genesis with the knowledge of good and evil, it means we know it in ourselves by the nature of our will. On that basis I believe in universal morality, and ironically, the reason it is objective is because it's subjective. Hmmm. I should do koans.
I like that but could you expand a small amount on the 'it is objective because it's subjective'? So, you can start with a (** cough cough **) simple example: "the sky is blue". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2024 4:09:58 GMT -5
I think in theory we somehow agree, but how that looks in practice is where we differ strongly. You seem to suggest that this can be achieved on the level of experience where the problem of reactivity exists (SVP perspective), while I suggest that it can never be achieved on the level of experience. Which is why you argue in favor of practice and I argue against it. What you call mindfulness seems to be rooted in the present, while what I would call mindfulness would have to be rooted in TEN. This is the difference between what WWW called living phenomenally vs. living noumenally, one means incorrect action and therefore karma or bondage, the other correct action and therefore freedom from bondage. It's not really achieved on the level of experience other than in the sense that all reactivity is to experience (felt sensations specifically). It's resolved via insight into the true nature of things. I advocate practice that is specifically the awareness of 'this', just as it is, right now.
And that's what "kensho" and "satori" are referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2024 4:12:02 GMT -5
Sure sure, the mall cop. But the flip-side is .. there's always somethin' goin' on! .. and when ur not asleep, ur not asleep. If the plebs that tortured Christ knew what was going on, they wouldn't have done it. I'd posit that as the moral of the story.
That's the bottom-line, and the cultures that produced Christianity are nothing if not bottom-liners. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 4, 2024 4:25:16 GMT -5
In karma theory, the desire to be rid of things is the aversion toward those things and volitions such as resistance, avoidance, clinging are incited. That exertion of volition is bad karma. The event to which one reacts, or the consequence of reacting is not karma. If the reaction/volition produces a potential for future outcomes, and you are adverse toward such outcomes, you get stuck in a cycle of karma, reacting, producing, reacting, producing - incessantly generating volition. My tendency is see all that playing out in the world and understand the 'cause', which is bad karma, but karma is the volition behind it; not the manifestations thereof. The resolution is stop doing that. Hence the meditation I describe is very specific and precise not because my way is the best, but because things work in a certain way - the same way for everyone.
Yes, volition is a mental overlay over pure functioning. So in a sense, if there is no self (anatta) and only a stream of consciousness, or pure functioning. Attachment to certain parts or aspects of that stream ('me' and 'mine') then are the only problem. But that doesn't affect the stream or the pure functioning, consciousness will always be streaming and functioning purely. So neither self nor karma are real in that sense. It's all a fiction. There is no self that is in bondage or is freed from bondage because there is no self in the first place. Which means there is no cause of bondage and also no liberation from bondage. Which is why all the dharmas are empty and not truth. So it seems to me that LOK, the 4truths and the 8fold path may actually be the lower teaching of the Buddha, sorta like an appetizer, while anatta is the higher teaching, the actual teaching of the Buddha. Because that's Advaita as taught in Vedanta and Taoism. The bulk of karma theory is a commentary about a fiction. It's like saying Bond's first name was James. That's a true statement, but it's about the fiction. Immediately after his enlightenment, Buddha said something like, I see you house builder. I relate the 'house builder' to the false self just because I saw my own ghost, and thought, Wait a sec, that's not me. I was also a little dismayed that I'd been living as that all this time. Not that I call seeing the mirage enlightment. Some argue enlightenment is only when purification is perfected, and I'm happy to go along with that, but I'm more inclined to the notion that it's you, just as you are now.
I think Buddha, just going by what he supposedly said, went through the body to understand the mind and 'pierced the veil'. Hence he taught from experience and covered all the bases of body, mind and spirit. I think it's probable that Vedanta is also comprehensive (I don't know what it says), but modern teachers from Ramana on tend to promote self inquiry and neglect physical and psychological contexts. I'm not against self inquiry in any way - it's just that in the Buddhist philosophy, self inquiry one part of a broader endeavour.
Karma theory also extends to true statements about true things, but by and large, it's an explanation of the pitfalls of living as a false self, and as such, is largely some true statements about fictional things.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 4, 2024 4:25:47 GMT -5
I like that but could you expand a small amount on the 'it is objective because it's subjective'? So, you can start with a (** cough cough **) simple example: "the sky is blue". If only I was so wise, Master. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2024 4:40:29 GMT -5
The archery metaphor is meant to take the shame and judgement out of the notion of "sin" by pointing out the impersonalized etymology of the word. "Good" and "evil" are relatively heavyweight conceptual constructs, and removing that baggage is what taking the shame and judgment out of "sin" is meant to achieve. By the same token, what you say about "ill-will" is what I was getting at with the ideas of commonsense and intuition. Anyone, in all self-honesty, can know when they're going dark, and there's no need for any self-flagellation about it, either as it happens, or afterward. Mental and emotional quiescence, in those moments, is the key. That sort of moment I just described, seems to me very much related to reefs points about LOA, as well. Noticing the arising of ill-will is always an opportunity to vibe differently. Comparing the Christian "knowledge of good and evil" with the idea of "ignorance of true nature" (which I had heard credited to Buddhism years ago) is instructive for the sort of confusion that heavyweight constructs like "good" and "evil" can cause in mind. As I already noted, any thinking Christian is eventually confronted with the question sree posed about "God", and, again, everyone has that intuitive, commonsense feel for when they are confronted with either an internal or an external "demon". The Christian "knowledge" and the Buddhist "ignorance" are referring to the exact same thing, but thinking and philosophizing about it only leads to more mental confusion. As for the crack about koans .. .. well .. (** muttley snicker **). (to the extent I understand your terms and meanings) Excellent point, but the devil is always in the details. For example, aren't wealth and physical health outward signs of alignment? To me, each are quite ambiguous as to measures and indicators of good or evil. Wealth, in particular, can often be a countersign, as in, an indicator of evil. |
|
.. and when ur not asleep, ur not asleep. 
. I like it. 
