|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 0:11:51 GMT -5
I'd say you will recognize a lot of what other meditative traditions teach in what P says. But they might not take it all the way as P does. So yeah, I think you and P are likely in agreement on verse 3.49. I'd have to read him more widely and infer what all those words mean from the broader context, but the likelihood of me reading anything over 1000 words is close to zero. Yeah, I can see how that may look a bit overwhelming at first. However, generally speaking, the yoga tradition aligns with your concept of reality. Their model of reality is pretty much centered around karma and the need for purification and the highest goal there is liberation which they believe can only happen via NS. So in that sense, it's pretty much at odds with non-duality, especially their focus on physical and mental health. The difference I see to your approach is just one of scope, I'd say. Your focus seems rather narrow, mostly focused on karma and reactivity, supernatural powers for example, are not your interest and it seems you don't even consider them real. While from the yoga perspective, supernatural powers come part and parcel with the higher stages of concentration and purity (aka alignment), so while they shouldn't be pursued for their own sake, they shouldn't be shunned either. After all, those are our natural abilities. So in that sense, P is actually demystifying miracles and supernatural powers by giving them a rational framework. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 0:35:38 GMT -5
I've had some interesting exchanges with several people here; I don't feel ignored. I don't know what "giraffe herding" means. I might know what you mean by "crusading", but who cares? It seems like there are many thousands of posts from people repeating themselves, and telling others they are wrong. Is that not one of the games? I don't know who Robertk or Robertc is. I thought this was all virtual, and I don't know anybody here in real life. But now I see "Zendancer" has a real-life identity. So you are Sree then? I thought you promised to not come back in case you should get banned. And I'm pretty sure I've explained to you giraffes and crusades before. Alrighty then, just make sure that you actually understand the topic at hand and also address the actual points people make instead of reading things into posts that are just not there (giraffe herding) and then going to war with them following your own private agenda (crusading). No idea who Sree is either. Hard to discern the "topic at hand" because all the threads are all over the place. You mentioned physics and biology. You don't appear to have much understanding on those topics, but that doesn't stop you from talking shit. I'm not saying you should be silenced. Just that if we stopped people here from talking about things they don't understand, there wouldn't be many posts. "Reading things into posts" and "private agenda" seem subjective or unavoidable, but on "going to war" - I can see your point. I'll see if I can tone down or abstain from the LOA criticism and leave this thread alone. If there is too much magical thinking and bullshit in all the threads, then I can simply depart. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2024 0:54:58 GMT -5
I'd have to read him more widely and infer what all those words mean from the broader context, but the likelihood of me reading anything over 1000 words is close to zero. Yeah, I can see how that may look a bit overwhelming at first. However, generally speaking, the yoga tradition aligns with your concept of reality. Their model of reality is pretty much centered around karma and the need for purification and the highest goal there is liberation which they believe can only happen via NS. So in that sense, it's pretty much at odds with non-duality, especially their focus on physical and mental health. The difference I see to your approach is just one of scope, I'd say. Your focus seems rather narrow, mostly focused on karma and reactivity, supernatural powers for example, are not your interest and it seems you don't even consider them real. While from the yoga perspective, supernatural powers come part and parcel with the higher stages of concentration and purity (aka alignment), so while they shouldn't be pursued for their own sake, they shouldn't be shunned either. After all, those are our natural abilities. So in that sense, P is actually demystifying miracles and supernatural powers by giving them a rational framework. We don't really consider special powers as remarkable, but purification is one point of four. They aren't exactly four different things, just an overall thing that was categorised into purification, truthfulness, overcoming sorrow and liberation. Karma is generally defined as volition, and will is contrasted as goodwill vs. ill will, giving a moral dimension to karma. In your language, purification is alignment and reactivity is the SVP. On the stages of progress we still have supernatural things, kandalini, subtle body and so on and so on, but such stages are thought to be risky because they are very tempting and arouse the want for more. At that stage of training equanimity is essential, and in advanced stages you realise that the whole of practice is conscious awareness with mindful equanimity. Hence we can experience special powers, but they are merely an aside, and they could disrupt the practice and perhaps become troublesome for those who haven't properly established their balance of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 0:56:58 GMT -5
So you are Sree then? I thought you promised to not come back in case you should get banned. And I'm pretty sure I've explained to you giraffes and crusades before. Alrighty then, just make sure that you actually understand the topic at hand and also address the actual points people make instead of reading things into posts that are just not there (giraffe herding) and then going to war with them following your own private agenda (crusading). No idea who Sree is either. Hard to discern the "topic at hand" because all the threads are all over the place. You mentioned physics and biology. You don't appear to have much understanding on those topics, but that doesn't stop you from talking shit. I'm not saying you should be silenced. Just that if we stopped people here from talking about things they don't understand, there wouldn't be many posts. "Reading things into posts" and "private agenda" seem subjective or unavoidable, but on "going to war" - I can see your point. I'll see if I can tone down or abstain from the LOA criticism and leave this thread alone. If there is too much magical thinking and bullshit in all the threads, then I can simply depart. Yes, it looks like you'd be better off on a science forum than a spiritual forum, because you don't seem to understand much or seem to have an interest in spirituality. Just playing the contrarian for kicks is getting old real quick. We don't need that here. We've been there done that. Not going to fly. And in case you should decide to stay, try getting a logically consistent argument together for a change, with some actual counterpoints that address the actual points made in the discussion, instead of just dismissing everything that goes beyond your ken as "talking shit", "magical thinking" or "bullshit". Okay? ETA: Science is not the gold standard here. The gold standard here is SR. Which relegates science to the realm of relative, or half-truths, that may be useful at some level of understanding but ultimately have to be transcended at some point, if the goal is the ultimate truth. If you have a problem with that, you are on the wrong forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 1:09:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see how that may look a bit overwhelming at first. However, generally speaking, the yoga tradition aligns with your concept of reality. Their model of reality is pretty much centered around karma and the need for purification and the highest goal there is liberation which they believe can only happen via NS. So in that sense, it's pretty much at odds with non-duality, especially their focus on physical and mental health. The difference I see to your approach is just one of scope, I'd say. Your focus seems rather narrow, mostly focused on karma and reactivity, supernatural powers for example, are not your interest and it seems you don't even consider them real. While from the yoga perspective, supernatural powers come part and parcel with the higher stages of concentration and purity (aka alignment), so while they shouldn't be pursued for their own sake, they shouldn't be shunned either. After all, those are our natural abilities. So in that sense, P is actually demystifying miracles and supernatural powers by giving them a rational framework. We don't really consider special powers as remarkable, but purification is one point of four. They aren't exactly four different things, just an overall thing that was categorised into purification, truthfulness, overcoming sorrow and liberation. Karma is generally defined as volition, and will is contrasted as goodwill vs. ill will, giving a moral dimension to karma. In your language, purification is alignment and reactivity is the SVP. On the stages of progress we still have supernatural things, kandalini, subtle body and so on and so on, but such stages are thought to be risky because they are very tempting and arouse the want for more. At that stage of training equanimity is essential, and in advanced stages you realise that the whole of practice is conscious awareness with mindful equanimity. Hence we can experience special powers, but they are merely an aside, and they could disrupt the practice and perhaps become troublesome for those who haven't properly established their balance of mind. Yes, purification is reaching higher stages of alignment and reactivity is SVP related. However, we all have a basic energy pattern, or vibrational signature, our core personality, which comes with certain natural likes and dislikes or preferences. So there will be certain experiences, situations or things or people that you would natural seek or avoid. And that has nothing to do with the SVP. Niz was a feisty guy by character, so being argumentative was his nature. RM was a meek guy by character, so being non-argumentative was his nature. If you don't know that, by just observing them and comparing their behavior, you may conclude that Niz had ego problems and RM hadn't. I think this where people often get confused, they think they just have to take everything as it comes and suppress those preferences and the SVP, but in reality, that would actually be the SVP, trying to suppress what is natural. Or stated differently, only ego has a problem with ego, hehe. And goodwill in my language would be acting from a place of alignment, ill will from a place of misalignment. So there is no moral implication. Yes, those stages are seen as risky because people can get attached to their super powers and then get stuck in those higher intermediary stages. Those super powers are only extras that you wouldn't usually need in daily life. There is something I would like you to clarify though. You often refer to "what the Buddhists say". Does that mean that you follow the Buddhist doctrine or do you have your own doctrine and just take the parts from Buddhism that you can identify with and leave the rest? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 1:56:56 GMT -5
I'm very much on board with most of what you say about health and healing from a Source perspective, except for one particular point. Change, is nothing but time, and time, is nothing but change, so this idea of immediate manifestation is one that I reserve any judgment on for now. I don't disagree with the point that "creative potential is only ever Now", butt, the applicable tenkautology is: "it takes time to manifest whatever it takes time to manifest".  As a first step you could pay attention to the instant manifestations that already happen in your life all the time all day long, like feeling thirsty and reaching for a bottle of water and quenching your thirst instantly, or being out of water and getting some more in the store next door, instantly. Those are all more or less instant manifestations, where your beliefs and expectations match your desire perfectly, so it happens effortlessly but you usually don't notice it as such, exactly because it happens so effortlessly and naturally. People usually look for the big things when they look for miracles, but it's actually in the little things where you can find it more frequently. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 2:04:18 GMT -5
No idea who Sree is either. Hard to discern the "topic at hand" because all the threads are all over the place. You mentioned physics and biology. You don't appear to have much understanding on those topics, but that doesn't stop you from talking shit. I'm not saying you should be silenced. Just that if we stopped people here from talking about things they don't understand, there wouldn't be many posts. "Reading things into posts" and "private agenda" seem subjective or unavoidable, but on "going to war" - I can see your point. I'll see if I can tone down or abstain from the LOA criticism and leave this thread alone. If there is too much magical thinking and bullshit in all the threads, then I can simply depart. Yes, it looks like you'd be better off on a science forum than a spiritual forum, because you don't seem to understand much or seem to have an interest in spirituality. Just playing the contrarian for kicks is getting old real quick. We don't need that here. We've been there done that. Not going to fly. And in case you should decide to stay, try getting a logically consistent argument together for a change, with some actual counterpoints that address the actual points made in the discussion, instead of just dismissing everything that goes beyond your ken as "talking shit", "magical thinking" or "bullshit". Okay? I made several very specific and technical points. I know what I'm talking about, so your claims that I'm not logical or relevant don't phase me. I'm sorry, I think I did get the wrong impression from some of the posts I read, about the game being played here, and the degree to which people want to joke around and rough it up. No problem. I'm actually very interested in a certain kind of spirituality, but not in the way or style you appear to be, so I will try to leave you alone, or at least I'll leave the LOA-type discussions alone. That's fair. "Lolly" suggested I do the same thing days ago. If some believer starts telling me he "understands" the Universe with a puny human brain, I can easily ignore them. I didn't realize at first that it's the same half dozen people posting all the time - haha. Shouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 2:13:17 GMT -5
Yes, it looks like you'd be better off on a science forum than a spiritual forum, because you don't seem to understand much or seem to have an interest in spirituality. Just playing the contrarian for kicks is getting old real quick. We don't need that here. We've been there done that. Not going to fly. And in case you should decide to stay, try getting a logically consistent argument together for a change, with some actual counterpoints that address the actual points made in the discussion, instead of just dismissing everything that goes beyond your ken as "talking shit", "magical thinking" or "bullshit". Okay? ETA: Science is not the gold standard here. The gold standard here is SR. Which relegates science to the realm of relative, or half-truths, that may be useful at some level of understanding but ultimately have to be transcended at some point, if the goal is the ultimate truth. If you have a problem with that, you are on the wrong forum. You added that part at the end after I responded. SR = Self Realization I assume. I have no problem with that. But I think that has almost nothing to do with most "spirituality", which I consider made up BS that actually gets in the way of SR. But like I said, I can tone it down and leave some people to do their thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 2:26:14 GMT -5
Yes, it looks like you'd be better off on a science forum than a spiritual forum, because you don't seem to understand much or seem to have an interest in spirituality. Just playing the contrarian for kicks is getting old real quick. We don't need that here. We've been there done that. Not going to fly. And in case you should decide to stay, try getting a logically consistent argument together for a change, with some actual counterpoints that address the actual points made in the discussion, instead of just dismissing everything that goes beyond your ken as "talking shit", "magical thinking" or "bullshit". Okay? I made several very specific and technical points. I know what I'm talking about, so your claims that I'm not logical or relevant don't phase me. I'm sorry, I think I did get the wrong impression from some of the posts I read, about the game being played here, and the degree to which people want to joke around and rough it up. No problem. I'm actually very interested in a certain kind of spirituality, but not in the way or style you appear to be, so I will try to leave you alone, or at least I'll leave the LOA-type discussions alone. That's fair. "Lolly" suggested I do the same thing days ago. If some believer starts telling me he "understands" the Universe with a puny human brain, I can easily ignore them. I didn't realize at first that it's the same half dozen people posting all the time - haha. Shouldn't be a problem. Your points were unrelated to my points, not even the same context. Ergo, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So, as with Lolly, there was no intelligible, logically consistent discussion with you possible. You see, Robert, you may understand a thing or two in terms of biology and maybe physics, and I can appreciate that, but you don't understand LOA or Seth or non-duality, like at all. Your lottery example clearly showed that you didn't have the slightest clue what the actual argument was. You were basically burning strawmen all the time. And you mistook the thick smoke that you created for something of substance. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 2:28:40 GMT -5
Yes, it looks like you'd be better off on a science forum than a spiritual forum, because you don't seem to understand much or seem to have an interest in spirituality. Just playing the contrarian for kicks is getting old real quick. We don't need that here. We've been there done that. Not going to fly. And in case you should decide to stay, try getting a logically consistent argument together for a change, with some actual counterpoints that address the actual points made in the discussion, instead of just dismissing everything that goes beyond your ken as "talking shit", "magical thinking" or "bullshit". Okay? ETA: Science is not the gold standard here. The gold standard here is SR. Which relegates science to the realm of relative, or half-truths, that may be useful at some level of understanding but ultimately have to be transcended at some point, if the goal is the ultimate truth. If you have a problem with that, you are on the wrong forum. You added that part at the end after I responded. SR = Self Realization I assume. I have no problem with that. But I think that has almost nothing to do with most "spirituality", which I consider made up BS that actually gets in the way of SR. But like I said, I can tone it down and leave some people to do their thing. If you understood what SR actually is, you'd know that nothing can get in the way of SR, no matter how big the BS. None of this talk here brings you any closer to SR or pulls you further away from SR. SR is acausal and refers to the perspective of Self. Your arguments are all causal and referring to the perspective of self. In short, you are just making stuff up and it causes you mental and emotional discomfort. So just stop making stuff up. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 2:46:28 GMT -5
You added that part at the end after I responded. SR = Self Realization I assume. I have no problem with that. But I think that has almost nothing to do with most "spirituality", which I consider made up BS that actually gets in the way of SR. But like I said, I can tone it down and leave some people to do their thing. If you understood what SR actually is, you'd know that nothing can get in the way of SR, no matter how big the BS. None of this talk here brings you any closer to SR or pulls you further away from SR. SR is acausal and refers to the perspective of Self. Your arguments are all causal and referring to the perspective of self. In short, you are just making stuff up and it causes you mental and emotional discomfort. So just stop making stuff up. Interesting. I agreed with your point that I shouldn't go to war with people who have a different religion. But you keep firing shots and now you're trying to psychoanalyze me? Make up your mind, admin sir. Nobody "understands" SR. It's not an intellectual conclusion. No need to lecture me about it. If I want a guru I'll find one somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 3:02:54 GMT -5
I made several very specific and technical points. I know what I'm talking about, so your claims that I'm not logical or relevant don't phase me. I'm sorry, I think I did get the wrong impression from some of the posts I read, about the game being played here, and the degree to which people want to joke around and rough it up. No problem. I'm actually very interested in a certain kind of spirituality, but not in the way or style you appear to be, so I will try to leave you alone, or at least I'll leave the LOA-type discussions alone. That's fair. "Lolly" suggested I do the same thing days ago. If some believer starts telling me he "understands" the Universe with a puny human brain, I can easily ignore them. I didn't realize at first that it's the same half dozen people posting all the time - haha. Shouldn't be a problem. Your points were unrelated to my points, not even the same context. Ergo, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So, as with Lolly, there was no intelligible, logically consistent discussion with you possible. You see, Robert, you may understand a thing or two in terms of biology and maybe physics, and I can appreciate that, but you don't understand LOA or Seth or non-duality, like at all. Your lottery example clearly showed that you didn't have the slightest clue what the actual argument was. You were basically burning strawmen all the time. And you mistook the thick smoke that you created for something of substance. "Understand non-duality" ...... Good luck with that. You are correct I don't understand Seth at all. I came for the spirituality; I stayed for the comedy. I'm going to ignore these ridiculous attacks, because it seems like you're venting off some pent up something, and I've agreed with you to stop "going to war" with religion that I dislike. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2024 4:54:27 GMT -5
We don't really consider special powers as remarkable, but purification is one point of four. They aren't exactly four different things, just an overall thing that was categorised into purification, truthfulness, overcoming sorrow and liberation. Karma is generally defined as volition, and will is contrasted as goodwill vs. ill will, giving a moral dimension to karma. In your language, purification is alignment and reactivity is the SVP. On the stages of progress we still have supernatural things, kandalini, subtle body and so on and so on, but such stages are thought to be risky because they are very tempting and arouse the want for more. At that stage of training equanimity is essential, and in advanced stages you realise that the whole of practice is conscious awareness with mindful equanimity. Hence we can experience special powers, but they are merely an aside, and they could disrupt the practice and perhaps become troublesome for those who haven't properly established their balance of mind. Yes, purification is reaching higher stages of alignment and reactivity is SVP related. However, we all have a basic energy pattern, or vibrational signature, our core personality, which comes with certain natural likes and dislikes or preferences. So there will be certain experiences, situations or things or people that you would natural seek or avoid. And that has nothing to do with the SVP. Niz was a feisty guy by character, so being argumentative was his nature. RM was a meek guy by character, so being non-argumentative was his nature. If you don't know that, by just observing them and comparing their behavior, you may conclude that Niz had ego problems and RM hadn't. I think this where people often get confused, they think they just have to take everything as it comes and suppress those preferences and the SVP, but in reality, that would actually be the SVP, trying to suppress what is natural. Or stated differently, only ego has a problem with ego, hehe. And goodwill in my language would be acting from a place of alignment, ill will from a place of misalignment. So there is no moral implication. Yes, those stages are seen as risky because people can get attached to their super powers and then get stuck in those higher intermediary stages. Those super powers are only extras that you wouldn't usually need in daily life. There is something I would like you to clarify though. You often refer to "what the Buddhists say". Does that mean that you follow the Buddhist doctrine or do you have your own doctrine and just take the parts from Buddhism that you can identify with and leave the rest? Makes no difference to me if one guy is meek one guy is intense one guy is a joker etc, but if they aren't trustworthy, I'm out.
You can't cease volition and suppress at the same time because volition is suppression, resistance, clinging, pursuing etc.
The one aware doesn't have any problem with the ego, but that's not the same as saying ego isn't problematic. The problem is people think it's 'me', and that's a miserable state to be in. When we detach from it, that's probably the most horrific ego ever gets, but at the same time, the one aware is just watching and knowing 'that's not me' (as opposed to a few moments ago when you thought you were that). Hence we say the ego isn't as problem in one context, and say it is THE problem in another.
All will has a moral component, and Yoga probably has excellent references for that.
We relate goodwill to metta, loving kindness. It's how the infinite outpouring of love flows through the life-form in all the expressions of your life. Purification regards removing obstacles to that flow, however you can't remove them volitionally. Well, there are ways of getting rid of them, but the underlying aversion tendency is reinforced by that.
The body exists at different perceived realities from the dense and solid to the subtle and sublime. Impurity is dense in the body, so people call them blocks and what have you, but on a more detailed level, that density is comprised of lighter vibrations, waves, or another not-solid sensation. Hence if a density is there, that is because conscious awareness hasn't pervaded it very much. Often, that density correlates with emotional content that is caught up in life form... so it's a little bit complicated... but I think the main point is, let it be as it is, though that's not easy because of the habitual tendency to react. Once the reaction starts, voiltion, resistance. suppression, clinging, etc.
Yup, it's the craving, attachment, ego inflation that we see as risks associated with the 'amazing' stages.
Do I follow the scripture or cherry pick...
I studied and trained in a Buddhist context, so I understand things in those paradigms. I believe Buddha taught universal principles and not sectarian rote. After he died the Buddhists branched into a bunch of sects and it all became a mess. It's very restrictive because validation is merited by referring to texts. That's actually counter to the ontological root of Buddhist philosophy.
The proper Buddhist approach is you have to discern for yourself, so if a text, monk or teacher isn't making sense, don't believe it.
There is a parable about a mother that fed her son a desert of rice pudding. The Child started crying, 'ma, there are black stones in it.' The mother explained, 'that's not black stones, it is ground cardamon which gives it a good taste,' but the child was stupid and cried, 'black stones, black stones.' The mother took the rice and picked out all the cardamon bits and gave it back to the boy, who gobbled it all up. Later in life the mother gave the now grown man rice pudding. He now knows there are no black stones and he loves the cracked cardamon flavour.
When you receive philosophical instruction. If it looks like black stones, just pick them out to side of the plate. Maybe later you'll realise they aren't black stones and can see what they are there for. If not, just leave them out.
It was one of our things that everyone was alone to discern for themselves - We don't take anything on authority.
That's why when a Buddhist is disagreeable and verifies his view by quoting text or referring to an esteemed teacher, you can tell that person doesn't understand the deeper principles of Buddhist philosophy, but if you enter any Buddhist discussion, or read an essay or commentary, that's pretty much all they do.
The caveat is, if you are having a purely semantic discussion about the texts themselves, then of course it's purely about the Pali Canon. Those sorts of talks are just for the geeks and scholars though.
This whole approach stems from the three part ontological structure
1 You hear the teachings
2 You discern with logic and reason as to how it makes sense
3 You investigate for yourself and find out for real the ways in which it is true
That doesn't actually happen in practice because everyone turns to authority, texts, teachers etc. and are reduced from lively self-determination and curiosity to docile obedience.
If you read texts that supposedly recount what Buddha said, a monk asks him a question, and he replies by asking the monk a series of other questions. By following the answers the monk gives, he keeps leading the monk deeper by asking more questions. At the end he concludes with, if all that you said is true, then is it not true that xyz?. The monk has a lightbulb moment and an answer is revealed. The lessons from Buddha generally take that form.
In real training it's basically the same, but a bit more sublime. You meditate all day, and at night the teacher gives a philosophical discourse appropriate the that level of training. The meditators are like, 'wow he's talking about me'. Day after day the meditations get deeper and the philosophical lessons become more sublime. Once mindfulness is established at least somewhat and the purification is underway, metta meditations are added as the body opens up to a flow.
The philosophy isn't given too early because all 3 aspects of epistemology are not steps like first, second and third. Its more like a Ven diagram with three circles that overlap in the centre. Hencewhy Buddha led with questions so that a person has to discern, has to join the dots along the way, and realise for themselves the way in which it is true.
Because that process is kinda nuanced, I couldn't answer simply if I follow Buddhist scripture or cherry pick it... the three part ontology makes it more complex than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 5:00:08 GMT -5
If you understood what SR actually is, you'd know that nothing can get in the way of SR, no matter how big the BS. None of this talk here brings you any closer to SR or pulls you further away from SR. SR is acausal and refers to the perspective of Self. Your arguments are all causal and referring to the perspective of self. In short, you are just making stuff up and it causes you mental and emotional discomfort. So just stop making stuff up. Interesting. I agreed with your point that I shouldn't go to war with people who have a different religion. But you keep firing shots and now you're trying to psychoanalyze me? Make up your mind, admin sir. Nobody "understands" SR. It's not an intellectual conclusion. No need to lecture me about it. If I want a guru I'll find one somewhere else. Your points were unrelated to my points, not even the same context. Ergo, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. So, as with Lolly, there was no intelligible, logically consistent discussion with you possible. You see, Robert, you may understand a thing or two in terms of biology and maybe physics, and I can appreciate that, but you don't understand LOA or Seth or non-duality, like at all. Your lottery example clearly showed that you didn't have the slightest clue what the actual argument was. You were basically burning strawmen all the time. And you mistook the thick smoke that you created for something of substance. "Understand non-duality" ...... Good luck with that. You are correct I don't understand Seth at all. I came for the spirituality; I stayed for the comedy. I'm going to ignore these ridiculous attacks, because it seems like you're venting off some pent up something, and I've agreed with you to stop "going to war" with religion that I dislike. Good luck. I didn't say anything about other religions. I am just replying to your posts, and in kind. I am not admin. I didn't say SR is an intellectual conclusion. If you don't understand Seth at all, then you don't understand the argument at hand. Again, I didn't say anything about religion. Now, do you see how your replies have little to nothing to do with my posts? This is what I meant that you should try to get a coherent argument together for a change, and respond to what has actually been said, instead of making stuff up and then responding to your own fictions. Or else there's nothing of substance for me to reply to. Your choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 9:00:55 GMT -5
Yes, purification is reaching higher stages of alignment and reactivity is SVP related. However, we all have a basic energy pattern, or vibrational signature, our core personality, which comes with certain natural likes and dislikes or preferences. So there will be certain experiences, situations or things or people that you would natural seek or avoid. And that has nothing to do with the SVP. Niz was a feisty guy by character, so being argumentative was his nature. RM was a meek guy by character, so being non-argumentative was his nature. If you don't know that, by just observing them and comparing their behavior, you may conclude that Niz had ego problems and RM hadn't. I think this where people often get confused, they think they just have to take everything as it comes and suppress those preferences and the SVP, but in reality, that would actually be the SVP, trying to suppress what is natural. Or stated differently, only ego has a problem with ego, hehe. And goodwill in my language would be acting from a place of alignment, ill will from a place of misalignment. So there is no moral implication. Yes, those stages are seen as risky because people can get attached to their super powers and then get stuck in those higher intermediary stages. Those super powers are only extras that you wouldn't usually need in daily life. There is something I would like you to clarify though. You often refer to "what the Buddhists say". Does that mean that you follow the Buddhist doctrine or do you have your own doctrine and just take the parts from Buddhism that you can identify with and leave the rest? 1) Makes no difference to me if one guy is meek one guy is intense one guy is a joker etc, but if they aren't trustworthy, I'm out.
2) You can't cease volition and suppress at the same time because volition is suppression, resistance, clinging, pursuing etc. 3) The one aware doesn't have any problem with the ego, but that's not the same as saying ego isn't problematic. The problem is people think it's 'me', and that's a miserable state to be in. When we detach from it, that's probably the most horrific ego ever gets, but at the same time, the one aware is just watching and knowing 'that's not me' (as opposed to a few moments ago when you thought you were that). Hence we say the ego isn't as problem in one context, and say it is THE problem in another.
4) All will has a moral component, and Yoga probably has excellent references for that. 5) We relate goodwill to metta, loving kindness. It's how the infinite outpouring of love flows through the life-form in all the expressions of your life. Purification regards removing obstacles to that flow, however you can't remove them volitionally. Well, there are ways of getting rid of them, but the underlying aversion tendency is reinforced by that. The body exists at different perceived realities from the dense and solid to the subtle and sublime. Impurity is dense in the body, so people call them blocks and what have you, but on a more detailed level, that density is comprised of lighter vibrations, waves, or another not-solid sensation. Hence if a density is there, that is because conscious awareness hasn't pervaded it very much. Often, that density correlates with emotional content that is caught up in life form... so it's a little bit complicated... but I think the main point is, let it be as it is, though that's not easy because of the habitual tendency to react. Once the reaction starts, voiltion, resistance. suppression, clinging, etc.
6) Yup, it's the craving, attachment, ego inflation that we see as risks associated with the 'amazing' stages. 7) Do I follow the scripture or cherry pick...
I studied and trained in a Buddhist context, so I understand things in those paradigms. I believe Buddha taught universal principles and not sectarian rote. After he died the Buddhists branched into a bunch of sects and it all became a mess. It's very restrictive because validation is merited by referring to texts. That's actually counter to the ontological root of Buddhist philosophy.
The proper Buddhist approach is you have to discern for yourself, so if a text, monk or teacher isn't making sense, don't believe it. There is a parable about a mother that fed her son a desert of rice pudding. The Child started crying, 'ma, there are black stones in it.' The mother explained, 'that's not black stones, it is ground cardamon which gives it a good taste,' but the child was stupid and cried, 'black stones, black stones.' The mother took the rice and picked out all the cardamon bits and gave it back to the boy, who gobbled it all up. Later in life the mother gave the now grown man rice pudding. He now knows there are no black stones and he loves the cracked cardamon flavour.
When you receive philosophical instruction. If it looks like black stones, just pick them out to side of the plate. Maybe later you'll realise they aren't black stones and can see what they are there for. If not, just leave them out.
It was one of our things that everyone was alone to discern for themselves - We don't take anything on authority. That's why when a Buddhist is disagreeable and verifies his view by quoting text or referring to an esteemed teacher, you can tell that person doesn't understand the deeper principles of Buddhist philosophy, but if you enter any Buddhist discussion, or read an essay or commentary, that's pretty much all they do. The caveat is, if you are having a purely semantic discussion about the texts themselves, then of course it's purely about the Pali Canon. Those sorts of talks are just for the geeks and scholars though.
This whole approach stems from the three part ontological structure 1 You hear the teachings 2 You discern with logic and reason as to how it makes sense 3 You investigate for yourself and find out for real the ways in which it is true That doesn't actually happen in practice because everyone turns to authority, texts, teachers etc. and are reduced from lively self-determination and curiosity to docile obedience. If you read texts that supposedly recount what Buddha said, a monk asks him a question, and he replies by asking the monk a series of other questions. By following the answers the monk gives, he keeps leading the monk deeper by asking more questions. At the end he concludes with, if all that you said is true, then is it not true that xyz?. The monk has a lightbulb moment and an answer is revealed. The lessons from Buddha generally take that form. In real training it's basically the same, but a bit more sublime. You meditate all day, and at night the teacher gives a philosophical discourse appropriate the that level of training. The meditators are like, 'wow he's talking about me'. Day after day the meditations get deeper and the philosophical lessons become more sublime. Once mindfulness is established at least somewhat and the purification is underway, metta meditations are added as the body opens up to a flow.
The philosophy isn't given too early because all 3 aspects of epistemology are not steps like first, second and third. Its more like a Ven diagram with three circles that overlap in the centre. Hencewhy Buddha led with questions so that a person has to discern, has to join the dots along the way, and realise for themselves the way in which it is true. Because that process is kinda nuanced, I couldn't answer simply if I follow Buddhist scripture or cherry pick it... the three part ontology makes it more complex than that. 1) Agreed. 2) Agreed. 3) Yes, identification with the 'me' is Gopal's rollercoaster. And that usually is a miserable state to be in. And detaching from it, in the sense of spiritual ego, is not much better, I agree. However, we may disagree on how things actually look like from the witness perspective. Maybe you can tell me how ego, reactivity, volition and karma are seen from that witness perspective. 4) There's a strict moral code in yoga, yes. But I am not a follower of yoga, so I look at it a bit differently, thru the alignment lens, and so there's just no need for any moral judgements. People tend to do their best, even when they lash out at others, because given their state of being, it's all what they've got available in term so of behavior. You can't expect someone in anger mode to behave cute and cuddly, right? That option is out of reach for them in that state of being. But you can expect them to reflect on what just happened when the anger has blown over and then the other mode is in reach again. Moral codes often ask the impossible from people and so create other problems, like suppressed emotions that can cause much bigger problems in the long run. This isn't to say that you should throw all morals into the wind, because universal moral codes actually mimic behavior that is natural in a state of alignment. So the usual approach is backwards. You don't get virtuous people by making them adhere to strict rules of morality, you get virtuous people by teaching them alignment. 5) So in essence, it's the tar baby thing. You can't get out of it by fighting it, that will only get you deeper involved, and so the only way is to not touch it. Which, in practical terms means that you have to adopt a higher, broader perspective. And then it will sort itself out, naturally. Is that what you are saying? Because that is basically what the alignment approach is, you don't solve a problem by wrestling it to the ground, you seek alignment with who you really are and then you take another look at it, which usually means the problem isn't a problem anymore, or the problem has resolved itself or there's an obvious and simple solution that you couldn't see before. 6) Yes, becoming a super-SVP can look very tempting from the SVP perspective. And actually, seekers usually see the jnani as some kind of super-SVP, because that's all they can imagine from the SVP perspective. 7) I see that this is also your approach on the forum. That approach is actually similar to the mystical traditions of all the other major religions, who refused to go by dogma alone. The approach of asking questions and 'if X is so then XYZ is also so' technique is actually also Ramana's style. It can be very effective, because the student has to think and discern for himself and reach an inevitable conclusion, and so once he reaches that correct conclusion, he owns it, as opposed to just repeating what the books tell you and taking it on faith, then you don't own it, you just memorized it, but will forget as soon as you are distracted again, while in the first case, it's not something you can forget, because it is not just memory. And that was clear enough, thanks. Now I understand where you are coming from in terms of Buddhism and scriptures. I basically agree with your approach. |
|
