|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 20, 2024 9:11:56 GMT -5
I guess I find this subject quite interesting. It's the intelligence in the surrounding cells that are responsible for the regrowing. I work with plants as you know and they regrow all the time because of the 'energy' in the nodes. The nodes are points on the branches that contain the healing ability and regrowth information. If you put a node in contact with soil then it will grow roots instead. So yeah the regrowing in animals, mostly reptiles is clearly an evolutionary adaptation. Could humans also regrow, I would imagine without the emotional limitation then yes. Not that I want to put it to the test though!  But, if we consider the fact that our cells are replaced constantly through our lives, and that none of us have the exact same cells as we had 10 years ago. Add that to the fact that science of the future will regrow organs for us from our own DNA, I don't think this conversation is that unusual at all. Yes, plants and also frogs is covered in the book I mentioned. With plants it basically worked all the time, with frogs most of the time and with salamanders also most of the time but there are certain requirements, like the wound had to stay open or else there was no regeneration/regrowth of the limb. This is also where you had showing up different kinds of voltage, which seemed to determine if regrowth happened or not. There's actually a book called Healing is Voltage. Haven't read it, but it's related to acupuncture, I think. And acupuncture works with the Qi (or prana) concept, which they also use in yoga, so I think electricity could work as a bridge between yoga and medicine, the same way QM works as a bridge between physics and Seth & Friends. This lady discusses her relationship with the Chinese Arts and the benefits they gave her. |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 20, 2024 11:45:11 GMT -5
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. "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. I mean religion in the general sense. I could have said "spiritual ideas" or "spiritual beliefs". About pointless beliefs "getting in the way" of SR : sure, there are no hard rules on these matters. But there is plenty of good teaching and experience on this. Even the Bible verse hints at it - about how it is hard for a "rich man" to enter the "Kingdom of Heaven". Your style of "argument", like your belief system, is not something I have any interest in. So I'll leave alone these discussions about LOA, psychic channelers, quantum healing, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 20, 2024 15:10:35 GMT -5
...
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
...
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.
... This part of your reply pointed me to an explanation, that I was looking for, to the observation that there is a foolishness exhibited by a category of people, who although they are above the average intelligence, occasionally (often) fail miserably by reaching the wrong conclusion, then honestly and intensely emotionally persist in it. This can be observed especially in situations were something of great importance is involved, like politics, health, education, persecution, suffering, threats, religion, .... The explanation seems to be that they reach their conclusion according to an ontology like the one you described. That has the weakness of relying on intellect, often under emotional pressure, not having a clue that any conclusion needs to be gated by intuition, and as our intuition (as humans) is mostly undeveloped, they should at least reserve room for being wrong in their "logical, reasonable, making sense, investigated, true" conclusion. In your Buddha driven inquiry, the lack of intuition of the seeker was compensated by the Buddha's, with the reserve that even Buddha had his limitations, no matter how advanced he might've been. For us, who don't have the ability to discern who / what is advanced enough to follow, the only way seems to be to turn to our own individual source of knowledge and guidance, leaving aside everything we already believe and expect, and keeping in mind that inherently we'll distort to some unknown degree that inner wisdom. Following that ontology as you described is a sure way to foolishness, hence suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2024 19:35:23 GMT -5
...
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
...
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.
... This part of your reply pointed me to an explanation, that I was looking for, to the observation that there is a foolishness exhibited by a category of people, who although they are above the average intelligence, occasionally (often) fail miserably by reaching the wrong conclusion, then honestly and intensely emotionally persist in it. This can be observed especially in situations were something of great importance is involved, like politics, health, education, persecution, suffering, threats, religion, .... The explanation seems to be that they reach their conclusion according to an ontology like the one you described. That has the weakness of relying on intellect, often under emotional pressure, not having a clue that any conclusion needs to be gated by intuition, and as our intuition (as humans) is mostly undeveloped, they should at least reserve room for being wrong in their "logical, reasonable, making sense, investigated, true" conclusion. In your Buddha driven inquiry, the lack of intuition of the seeker was compensated by the Buddha's, with the reserve that even Buddha had his limitations, no matter how advanced he might've been. For us, who don't have the ability to discern who / what is advanced enough to follow, the only way seems to be to turn to our own individual source of knowledge and guidance, leaving aside everything we already believe and expect, and keeping in mind that inherently we'll distort to some unknown degree that inner wisdom. Following that ontology as you described is a sure way to foolishness, hence suffering. Your response is self consistent, but it omits the 3rd part of the ontology.
If you have a volume on swimming, you can see the logical consistency of how swimming makes sense, and if put into practice it would work, but if you fell off a boat you would drown. The 3rd and missing part of that scholar's knowledge is getting in the water and finding out for himself the way in which his volumes are true. If he employed this 3rd critical part of knowledge, he would actually swim and not drown.
The next thing you overlooked regards following, and again, your point has merit, but I didn't advocate following. I said we are alone to discern for ourselves and we don't turn to authority.
No one can know the way in which a volume on swimming is true unless they actually learn to swim. Of course you'd give the swim teacher the benefit of the doubt, but first you know how his instruction makes sense (you get it), and then you get in the pool and find out for yourself. When you see and feel it working, you be like 'ah, I see'. Your swim teacher is respected, trusted, but not revered; not 'followed' in awe with mouth agape over every word, and even though you take instruction, you are still self-determining and discerning - then you declare yourself a woman and join the girls' team.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2024 20:25:05 GMT -5
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. From the witness perspective, I call the perspective of the one aware, the ego appears to be a horrid apparition of wound up tension and angst. The one aware doesn't do anything to make it other than it is.
There's no judgment. Morality is pretty simple on the face of it. Good will stems from the great outpouring and ill will stems from psychological reactivity. We generally impose a moral code and strict behavioural rules for a couple of reasons, The first is institutional as we build the institution on moral foundations and shape it on an ethical framework so that the instituton is a trustworthy refuge. From the ethical framework, behavioural codes are drawn so that the communal life is safe, trustworthy and worthy of refuge, and from those boundaries, the conditions that are most conducive to purification arise.
Exactly. Fighting it is aversion, volition, repression, avoidance clinging etc. Pretty much exactly what I'm saying.
Right. Self-determination is essential and you are ultimately alone to discern for yourself. People don't take it seriously unless it is entirely up to them. This also becomes a moral because when it's up to you alone, you have to be completely truthful. Hence we say meditation is to walk the path of truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 20, 2024 21:35:56 GMT -5
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. I mean religion in the general sense. I could have said "spiritual ideas" or "spiritual beliefs". About pointless beliefs "getting in the way" of SR : sure, there are no hard rules on these matters. But there is plenty of good teaching and experience on this. Even the Bible verse hints at it - about how it is hard for a "rich man" to enter the "Kingdom of Heaven". Your style of "argument", like your belief system, is not something I have any interest in. So I'll leave alone these discussions about LOA, psychic channelers, quantum healing, etc. I don't think that an appeal to authority is going to settle this dispute. Appeal to authority may work in science or philosophy, but not with SR. You either have a reference for what SR stands for or you don't. And if you do, you don't need to rely on authorities, you can argue independently, on your own. And if you don't, no appeal to authority will give you any real grounding in a debate. And what do you think 'rich man' and 'kingdom of heaven' means anyway? You are not taking this literally, are you? And sure, you can paint yourself as the victim, promise to behave and then take your ball and leave the discussion. That's one way of going about it, the childish way. But I am going to predict that this is not going to work, you will keep reading about LOA in other threads and you will get triggered again and we will be at this same point again where we are now, very shortly. But there's another way of going about it, the adult way. You could take some responsibility, after all you started it, and you also still keep it going, it always takes two to tango, right? You've already admitted that you don't understand Seth. The next step would be to also admit that you don't understand LOA, at least not in the way I use that term. That would clear the deck. And then you can tell me how you understand LOA and what ticks you off about it and the people that talk about it and I'd be happy to clarify any questions or misunderstandings. Usually people learn about LOA from people who don't really understand it themselves and so they get it all wrong, and LOA has also been commercialized beyond recognition, which also doesn't go over well with a lot of people. But people usually don't argue about gravity. They can see how it works and how it affects their lives and accept it. It's very consistent and reliable. Similarly with LOA, once you understand it, you can see how it works and affects your life and you will also see how it is very consistent and reliable. But unlike gravity, LOA does not only apply to one context, it applies across all contexts, both in the waking state and the dream state, both in the physical realms and in the non-physical realms. And that's what makes LOA so interesting and an understanding of it essential if you want to understand why you have the experiences your are having, and why other people are having the experiences they are having. You are also not the first scientifically minded guy who is fighting me on this with unrelated 'scientific' counter arguments. There have been plenty. And some actually had a change of mind after dropping their preconceived notions about LOA. Just ask Laughter and how he came to see that there's more to this LOA thingy than "magical thinking". There is nothing irrational about it. It's perfectly rational and no evidence to the contrary anywhere. In fact, LOA is impossible to disprove, because disproving it would be proving it again. You see, from my perspective, you were the irrational one, because you can't tell the difference between primary and secondary causes, lower and higher laws. And so the reason why this conversation didn't go anywhere is this: you don't understand LOA, so you are going to miss my point. And since you are missing my point, you cannot address my point. And since you cannot address my point, your counter points are unrelated and therefore irrelevant points in terms of argument. And since you make unrelated and irrelevant points, there was no point in addressing them. So we both were wasting our time. But it doesn't have to be that way. That being said, my offer stands. Now, will it be option one or option two? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 20, 2024 22:12:24 GMT -5
This part of your reply pointed me to an explanation, that I was looking for, to the observation that there is a foolishness exhibited by a category of people, who although they are above the average intelligence, occasionally (often) fail miserably by reaching the wrong conclusion, then honestly and intensely emotionally persist in it. This can be observed especially in situations were something of great importance is involved, like politics, health, education, persecution, suffering, threats, religion, .... The explanation seems to be that they reach their conclusion according to an ontology like the one you described. That has the weakness of relying on intellect, often under emotional pressure, not having a clue that any conclusion needs to be gated by intuition, and as our intuition (as humans) is mostly undeveloped, they should at least reserve room for being wrong in their "logical, reasonable, making sense, investigated, true" conclusion. In your Buddha driven inquiry, the lack of intuition of the seeker was compensated by the Buddha's, with the reserve that even Buddha had his limitations, no matter how advanced he might've been. For us, who don't have the ability to discern who / what is advanced enough to follow, the only way seems to be to turn to our own individual source of knowledge and guidance, leaving aside everything we already believe and expect, and keeping in mind that inherently we'll distort to some unknown degree that inner wisdom. Following that ontology as you described is a sure way to foolishness, hence suffering. Your response is self consistent, but it omits the 3rd part of the ontology.
If you have a volume on swimming, you can see the logical consistency of how swimming makes sense, and if put into practice it would work, but if you fell off a boat you would drown. The 3rd and missing part of that scholar's knowledge is getting in the water and finding out for himself the way in which his volumes are true. If he employed this 3rd critical part of knowledge, he would actually swim and not drown.
The next thing you overlooked regards following, and again, your point has merit, but I didn't advocate following. I said we are alone to discern for ourselves and we don't turn to authority.
No one can know the way in which a volume on swimming is true unless they actually learn to swim. Of course you'd give the swim teacher the benefit of the doubt, but first you know how his instruction makes sense (you get it), and then you get in the pool and find out for yourself. When you see and feel it working, you be like 'ah, I see'. Your swim teacher is respected, trusted, but not revered; not 'followed' in awe with mouth agape over every word, and even though you take instruction, you are still self-determining and discerning - then you declare yourself a woman and join the girls' team.
My point was / is that to approach a truth, to make a good choice, to reach a correct conclusion you need intuition. No amount of knowledge can compensate for lack of intuition, and you can't learn intuition from any guru or dogma. I believe that you can develop your intuition only by tapping your own individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, and by putting aside all your beliefs and expectations up to this point. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2024 23:55:24 GMT -5
Your response is self consistent, but it omits the 3rd part of the ontology.
If you have a volume on swimming, you can see the logical consistency of how swimming makes sense, and if put into practice it would work, but if you fell off a boat you would drown. The 3rd and missing part of that scholar's knowledge is getting in the water and finding out for himself the way in which his volumes are true. If he employed this 3rd critical part of knowledge, he would actually swim and not drown.
The next thing you overlooked regards following, and again, your point has merit, but I didn't advocate following. I said we are alone to discern for ourselves and we don't turn to authority.
No one can know the way in which a volume on swimming is true unless they actually learn to swim. Of course you'd give the swim teacher the benefit of the doubt, but first you know how his instruction makes sense (you get it), and then you get in the pool and find out for yourself. When you see and feel it working, you be like 'ah, I see'. Your swim teacher is respected, trusted, but not revered; not 'followed' in awe with mouth agape over every word, and even though you take instruction, you are still self-determining and discerning - then you declare yourself a woman and join the girls' team.
My point was / is that to approach a truth, to make a good choice, to reach a correct conclusion you need intuition. No amount of knowledge can compensate for lack of intuition, and you can't learn intuition from any guru or dogma. I believe that you can develop your intuition only by tapping your own individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, and by putting aside all your beliefs and expectations up to this point. It is good when you can decide and do in the same movement without any procrastination - I'm not sure if that's intuition but there is something to be said for there being literally no time for hesitation. In terms of knowledge, you can learn the big teaching and nut it all out and join the dots, but the lightbulb moment of realisation happens surprisingly. I'm not sure if that's intuitive either, but it's actually ones insight that ascribes meanings into the philosophy. There's not so much a thing like 'what Buddha really meant'. Hence you only look at the internal consistency and see if it all adds up. When you jump in the water, you see what it means. On the second day you see it a bit different, and after a decade of consistent practice your understanding is extraordinary. Reefs will probably say, if you believe, you jump in for the first time and win the olympics... but so far at least, the only qualifiers trained hours a day from childhood.
I don't know if we're on the same page about intuition. What is a real world example if someone doing what's intuitive?
|
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 21, 2024 0:49:50 GMT -5
I mean religion in the general sense. I could have said "spiritual ideas" or "spiritual beliefs". About pointless beliefs "getting in the way" of SR : sure, there are no hard rules on these matters. But there is plenty of good teaching and experience on this. Even the Bible verse hints at it - about how it is hard for a "rich man" to enter the "Kingdom of Heaven". Your style of "argument", like your belief system, is not something I have any interest in. So I'll leave alone these discussions about LOA, psychic channelers, quantum healing, etc. I don't think that an appeal to authority is going to settle this dispute. Appeal to authority may work in science or philosophy, but not with SR. You either have a reference for what SR stands for or you don't. And if you do, you don't need to rely on authorities, you can argue independently, on your own. And if you don't, no appeal to authority will give you any real grounding in a debate. And what do you think 'rich man' and 'kingdom of heaven' means anyway? You are not taking this literally, are you? And sure, you can paint yourself as the victim, promise to behave and then take your ball and leave the discussion. That's one way of going about it, the childish way. But I am going to predict that this is not going to work, you will keep reading about LOA in other threads and you will get triggered again and we will be at this same point again where we are now, very shortly. But there's another way of going about it, the adult way. You could take some responsibility, after all you started it, and you also still keep it going, it always takes two to tango, right? You've already admitted that you don't understand Seth. The next step would be to also admit that you don't understand LOA, at least not in the way I use that term. That would clear the deck. And then you can tell me how you understand LOA and what ticks you off about it and the people that talk about it and I'd be happy to clarify any questions or misunderstandings. Usually people learn about LOA from people who don't really understand it themselves and so they get it all wrong, and LOA has also been commercialized beyond recognition, which also doesn't go over well with a lot of people. But people usually don't argue about gravity. They can see how it works and how it affects their lives and accept it. It's very consistent and reliable. Similarly with LOA, once you understand it, you can see how it works and affects your life and you will also see how it is very consistent and reliable. But unlike gravity, LOA does not only apply to one context, it applies across all contexts, both in the waking state and the dream state, both in the physical realms and in the non-physical realms. And that's what makes LOA so interesting and an understanding of it essential if you want to understand why you have the experiences your are having, and why other people are having the experiences they are having. You are also not the first scientifically minded guy who is fighting me on this with unrelated 'scientific' counter arguments. There have been plenty. And some actually had a change of mind after dropping their preconceived notions about LOA. Just ask Laughter and how he came to see that there's more to this LOA thingy than "magical thinking". There is nothing irrational about it. It's perfectly rational and no evidence to the contrary anywhere. In fact, LOA is impossible to disprove, because disproving it would be proving it again. You see, from my perspective, you were the irrational one, because you can't tell the difference between primary and secondary causes, lower and higher laws. And so the reason why this conversation didn't go anywhere is this: you don't understand LOA, so you are going to miss my point. And since you are missing my point, you cannot address my point. And since you cannot address my point, your counter points are unrelated and therefore irrelevant points in terms of argument. And since you make unrelated and irrelevant points, there was no point in addressing them. So we both were wasting our time. But it doesn't have to be that way. That being said, my offer stands. Now, will it be option one or option two? You might have a bare minimalist definition of LOA that I don't disagree with. The points I made were more against the other claims that usually follow it around. I don't see anything to be gained from hashing it out in further "discussion". It will likely be a waste of time and energy. I can adjust my behavior and not bomb your threads as I did. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 21, 2024 2:38:59 GMT -5
My point was / is that to approach a truth, to make a good choice, to reach a correct conclusion you need intuition. No amount of knowledge can compensate for lack of intuition, and you can't learn intuition from any guru or dogma. I believe that you can develop your intuition only by tapping your own individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, and by putting aside all your beliefs and expectations up to this point. It is good when you can decide and do in the same movement without any procrastination - I'm not sure if that's intuition but there is something to be said for there being literally no time for hesitation. In terms of knowledge, you can learn the big teaching and nut it all out and join the dots, but the lightbulb moment of realisation happens surprisingly. I'm not sure if that's intuitive either, but it's actually ones insight that ascribes meanings into the philosophy. There's not so much a thing like 'what Buddha really meant'. Hence you only look at the internal consistency and see if it all adds up. When you jump in the water, you see what it means. On the second day you see it a bit different, and after a decade of consistent practice your understanding is extraordinary. Reefs will probably say, if you believe, you jump in for the first time and win the olympics... but so far at least, the only qualifiers trained hours a day from childhood.
I don't know if we're on the same page about intuition. What is a real world example if someone doing what's intuitive?
This seems a pretty good definition of how intuition manifests: - intuition, in philosophy, the power of obtaining knowledge that cannot be acquired either by inference or observation, by reason or experience. As such, intuition is thought of as an original, independent source of knowledge, since it is designed to account for just those kinds of knowledge that other sources do not provide. Knowledge of necessary truths and of moral principles is sometimes explained in this way.
Using your learning to swim example, your intuition would bring you a strong thought / need to learn swimming before having accidentally fallen into deep water, if there was enough time before such an accident. If there was not enough time to learn to swim, your intuition would give you a strong feeling to avoid the specific circumstances of that accident. I often use intuition to interpret events, situations, dreams, quotes, ... Like recently making my own intuitive interpretations of the Delphic maxims, Yoga Sutras 3.1 to 3.6, Diamond Sutra pattern X / no X / then X, consciousness vs. awareness, ... |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 21, 2024 3:56:32 GMT -5
My point was / is that to approach a truth, to make a good choice, to reach a correct conclusion you need intuition. No amount of knowledge can compensate for lack of intuition, and you can't learn intuition from any guru or dogma. I believe that you can develop your intuition only by tapping your own individual inner source of knowledge and guidance, and by putting aside all your beliefs and expectations up to this point. It is good when you can decide and do in the same movement without any procrastination - I'm not sure if that's intuition but there is something to be said for there being literally no time for hesitation. In terms of knowledge, you can learn the big teaching and nut it all out and join the dots, but the lightbulb moment of realisation happens surprisingly. I'm not sure if that's intuitive either, but it's actually ones insight that ascribes meanings into the philosophy. There's not so much a thing like 'what Buddha really meant'. Hence you only look at the internal consistency and see if it all adds up. When you jump in the water, you see what it means. On the second day you see it a bit different, and after a decade of consistent practice your understanding is extraordinary. Reefs will probably say, if you believe, you jump in for the first time and win the olympics... but so far at least, the only qualifiers trained hours a day from childhood.
I don't know if we're on the same page about intuition. What is a real world example if someone doing what's intuitive?
Another example, a few minutes ago: Before moving away from my tablet for the day, I got a thought to check another forum that I only occasionally check. Looking it up in the bookmarks, I noticed another forum that I haven't browsed for months and haven't posted in for years. The latest couple of posts were thanks to a post from yesterday, that I found interesting because it described a similar approach to the one I use to project. I consider this serendipitous way of timely finding interesting, confirming, clarifying, useful, important information, to be a manifestation of intuition. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Feb 22, 2024 1:43:55 GMT -5
Most people are so overwhelmed by their past, that the present is like a crashing 20 foot wave. Of course we can learn to surf. That doesn't negate the law of karma. The law of gravity cannot be negated. But birds exist, as do planes. Consequences are always tied to actions. That's all karma means. Saying karma doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Karma is like a balloon payment we didn't know about because we didn't read the fine print. Forget karma. Karma is a misconception of LOA. And karma is tied to time and space. LOA is not. So you'd be better off studying LOA instead, because LOA trumps karma. From my perspective they are essentially one and the same. Karma is simply the trajectory and velocity of and produced by your thought patterns. It’s the current results of your prevailing thought patterns and what you give attention to most. And I don’t see anything especially spiritual or divine about LOA or Karma. Our brains have an organelle called the reticular activating system. It’s the brains filtering mechanism. At any given moment, there may be 2 million data points that are five senses can perceive, if we didn’t filter those perceptions we would become overwhelmed by them, and non-functional. The reticular activating system is the mechanism by which we do that. however it turns out that the reticular activating system is programmable and relies heavily on confirmation biases and habituation. In short, it lets through perceptions that confirm our most prevalent set of thought patterns, or beliefs, and lets the perceptions that we most habitually cast our attention on in, while filtering out almost everything else. A skilled practitioner of the law of attraction is simply consciously electing to program their own reticular activating system by performing repetitive mental exercises That alter both your thought patterns, and what you habitually give attention to in a way that reprograms your reticular activating system so that you’re able to observe the means of acquiring what you’re thinking about. In short by continuously, visualizing a completed goal or outcome you reprogram your reticular activating system, so that it filters in the means to accomplish that goal or outcome. Those means were always there, you were just blind to them when you reticular activating system, i.e. your brains filtering mechanism was programmed in a way that filtered those resources out of your conscious perception. An interesting mental exercise to demonstrate this point is the next time you’re out for a decent length drive in some traffic pick a random car, make, model, and color and say to yourself I want to see a black Corvette… for example, and then visualize seeing it. Nearly 100% of the time you will see that car make and model and color on your drive. You didn’t manifest that car into existence you simply programmed your reticular activating system to see it instead of filtering it out.. If you are adapt enough and self-aware enough to program your own reticular activating system, you can literally see the means to accomplish just about anything. Because your programming yourself to be able to see the means to do so, while also programming yourself to block out all the potential roadblocks that will hinder you from your objective. It’s almost like taking that pill in the Bradley Cooper movie called Limitless. We see either what we let our environment program ourselves to see, or what we intentionally program ourselves to see. That’s the action of the law of attraction, karma is the result. Although I’m hesitant to use the word results, because in the famous words of Drake, “this a Roley not a stopwatch shit don’t ever stop”. 😂😂😂 I don’t see LOA as creating your reality by manifesting it, all things exist right here and right now in infinite variation. With LOA you are simply altering your perception by altering what in the infinite array of experiences available to you that you are currently and most prevailing giving attention to. You are reprogramming your reticular activating system to see and perceive something that was always there, but previously you filtered out of your perception, both internally and externally. We don’t so much ‘create our experiences, as we do altar our perceptions and where we cast our attention so that we can become aware of, and sort of ‘enter’ those already existing experiences. There does however, seem to be at least a few wild cards in the Matrix that creates SOME randomization, but not much 😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 22, 2024 2:38:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 6:12:24 GMT -5
LOA is the larger context. LOK is the smaller context. LOK is limited to the personal context, but does not apply in the impersonal context. LOA, however, does apply both in the personal and impersonal context. As an example, LOK does not apply in the dream state, or to so-called ‘inanimate’ objects, but LOA still does. Which is why LOK, at best, is only a special case of LOA.
Which means, in practical terms for our discussions here, while the sage is not subject to LOK anymore, he is still subject to LOA though. Because the sage is the impersonal context. And impersonal context means no SVP, and no SVP means no volition and no volition means no LOK. But LOA applies across all contexts. Therefore LOA still applies to the sage.
And the impersonal context includes the personal context. So LOA is the meta law per se that governs the phenomenal world, LOK is a lesser law. That’s why it is impossible to disprove LOA, but very easy to disprove LOK. You just have to take away space and time or volition, and LOK already breaks down. Not so LOA. LOA works independently of space and time and volition. Which is why LOA also applies to the impersonal context, but LOK only to the personal context. In the impersonal context, there’s no basis for LOK.
So, if someone tells you that LOA and LOK are the same, you can rest assured that they don’t know what they are talking about. Usually on this forum, that is because they have no reference for the impersonal context, and so they have to make sense of everything from within the personal context, where LOA and LOK look very much alike. But even in the personal context, they are not the same.
So, no. LOK and LOA are not the same or even similar. They refer to different orders of reality and therefore cannot actually be compared. In practical terms for our discussions that means, we can use both LOK and LOA to describe what happens to the SVP, but we cannot use LOK to describe what happens to the sage. Only LOA can be used to describe what happens to the sage. And even that is just a mental overlay over THIS, and therefore ultimately not true. But within the context of relative truths, LOA trumps any other truth, especially LOK.
Based on my experience, having talked about LOA for more than a decade to all kinds of people with all kinds of backgrounds, I see four main reasons that stand in the way of fully understanding LOA and what it implies:
1) Confusing LOA with deliberate creation. That applies to almost 100% of counter arguments. Not really surprising, given what you usually read in self-help books.
2) Faulty logic. That applies to maybe 2/3 of counter arguments. Surprises me all the time how people at some point suddenly start making up their own rules of logic.
3) A personal agenda. That applies to maybe 1/3 of counter arguments. Also not surprising when you have people with a strong need to sell or prove something.
4) A lack of reference for the impersonal context. That is actually rare, because usually conversations don’t even get that far. 99% of conversations about LOA tend to remain confined to the personal context only, even on this forum.
So you see, you don’t need a PhD in philosophy to understand this, just basic logic and sincerity, that’s all.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 22, 2024 7:06:23 GMT -5
It's strange, because in all my narrative, there was no deliberate creation theory. Rather, it's a discussion about volition and the cessation thereof. Caveat being the more sublime notion of metta or goodwill. Of course volitions are exerted in dreams just as in wakefulness. In a more expansive sense, the universe runs on karmic law (it's a mind/matter thing), while the theory extends beyond mind and matter and indeed details the cessation of karma (volition) itself. It's just karma theory has been developing since prehistory and LOA theory is the most recent retelling. It's simply a revised lexicon.
We have a parable about many sided crystal. A very close view gives detail of one small facet, while a very far view has no detail, but covers the whole thing. If you have looked at all the facets closely, and then you take the far view, you understand how the tiny details together make up the entire crystal.
|
|
