|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 22, 2024 13:48:26 GMT -5
... What is more important is the anatta vs. karma dilemma in the Buddhist doctrine and how ... Wiki says: - Karma, rebirth and anattā
The Buddha emphasized both karma and anattā doctrines.[3] The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging essence as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no essence, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.
My interpretation is that Buddha meant that " there is a non-physical essence", that " it changes / evolves", that " it is materialized into the physical", that " it is subject to successive rebirths, influenced by the change / evolvement resulted from previous experience". I think that " there is no essence", as stated in the wiki comment, which reminds of Wu Wei's interpretation of the Diamond Sutra's pattern, is a distortion caused by the misunderstanding of the concept that the physical reality (and every single thing in it) is the materialization of a non-physical reality (and corresponding non-physical "essences"). Paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra pattern: when Buddha talks about material things (matter), Buddha talks about the non-material things, from which those material things appear. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2024 15:12:00 GMT -5
I've overheard elsewhere that there's a bible verse that says something along the lines about mistaking good for evil and vice-versa. If you take the moralism out of it you could re-phrase it as "mistaking what feels good for what feels bad and mistaking what feels bad for what feels good". Do you see how the sort of meditation suggested by lolz can reveal that? Just read a bit further in this thread and you'll see that Lolly and I are pretty much in alignment on the alignment topic. Our only disagreement is on the karma topic and the witness perspective. From the witness perspective, as I use that term, SVP and also karma are seen as a fiction. So you wouldn't come away with the conclusion that you should work on your reactivity in order to reduce your karma load. That would be illogical. But that is what I hear Lolly saying. So what he refers to as the witness perspective, can only be what I call the false witness perspective, i.e. a different level of identity poker, a broader and more expansive personal perspective, but not the impersonal perspective, which would be the true witness perspective. And then there's our disagreement about LOA not being LOK, but at this point, the argument is beyond silly. But in the scope of things discussed, that's not really important. What is more important is the anatta vs. karma dilemma in the Buddhist doctrine and how Lolly resolves it. So this is where I question his 'sort of meditation'. Even someone in the false witnessing position can discover by meditation that they are mistaking something that is bad for them as "feeling good" at the time. A substance abuser, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2024 15:30:05 GMT -5
It takes an extremely rare individual to be congruent in a belief that goes against the way that things overwhelmingly seem to be. I actually basically agree with Reefs, and I hold some strange and unusual beliefs, but I also acknowledge that I'm not fully congruent with them, and I honor that lack of congruence. I don't tend to do stupid sh/t because I acknowledge where I'm 'at' within my own mind. Also, just to note (which Reefs probably did)....let's say I hold a joyful vision of myself as super-healthy. The unfolding path might then have me lifting weights, doing cardio and changing my diet! In this sense, what you and Reefs are saying isn't mutually exclusive. Reefs is basically just saying it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Like those rare cases that people go against doctor's expectations of dying from a 'terminal' illnesses, by doing something unusual. Correct. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. This is spirituality 101 after all, and absolute beginner level. And those instances of healing you mention are also well documented, even by doctors (see Moorjani). I'm reading an interesting book right now, The Body Electric, it's basically about how healing works, and specifically about how salamanders regrow limbs. There was one case where a salamander fully regrew one limb several times in just three months, I think. That sounds fantastical at first, but once you understand the forces at work and how they work, nothing fantastical about it, especially if you use scientific terms instead of spiritual terms, e.g. replace 'life force' by 'voltage'. So as with Patanjali, this is not make-belief, it can actually be explained scientifically. Unfortunately, as with the previous karma discussion, it doesn't seem Lolly actually understands the argument, not to mention the constant logical errors in his argumentation. It's potentially an interesting discussion, but under such circumstances a total waste of time, I'm afraid. That's very interesting. The way I see it, if something unusual happens, then the science must expand to explain it. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it will be unexplainable after the event. The power of 'mind' (in the broadest sense) is infinite, and while the 'individual mind' is necessarily limited so that we can have a finite experience, I'm sure...as humans... we haven't gotten anywhere close to maximizing our mind-potential. It doesn't even seem to me that there's much in the way of resources put into investigating the idea of 'placebo/nocebo', which I find very odd really. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2024 15:37:14 GMT -5
I gather I shouldn't be "rude" and post my contrary ideas in the midst of people's conversations. But - question about forum rules - am I allowed to post my ideas in threads that I start? Or must I bow to the New Age admin-priests in order to post on this forum at all? I like writing, even if not a ton of people respond. What happens if I start threads like "Sloppy thinking that supports the false self", or "New Age fallacies", and write things that admins don't like? Assuming I don't mention names and only talk about ideas. Will they get emotional and put in me in an iron maiden until I cry out my agreement and acquiescence, that their Spirituality is "bigger than mine", and that I too am a believer?  |
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 22, 2024 16:28:28 GMT -5
I gather I shouldn't be "rude" and post my contrary ideas in the midst of people's conversations. But - question about forum rules - am I allowed to post my ideas in threads that I start? Or must I bow to the New Age admin-priests in order to post on this forum at all? I like writing, even if not a ton of people respond. What happens if I start threads like "Sloppy thinking that supports the false self", or "New Age fallacies", and write things that admins don't like? Assuming I don't mention names and only talk about ideas. Will they get emotional and put in me in an iron maiden until I cry out my agreement and acquiescence, that their Spirituality is "bigger than mine", and that I too am a believer? I will move that post as it's off topic in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 22, 2024 19:44:35 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. Volition assumes doership. Doership assumes a doer. A doer is the personal context. Therefore, as soon as you bring volition into the mix, you are automatically talking in the deliberate creation context. Which is why you keep confusing LOA with deliberate creation. And then, of course, you don't see the difference to LOK, because LOK is all about deliberate creation. And the universe is not run on LOK, because the universe is not run by a personal creator. So, there is no self and there is no personal creator. It's all pure impersonal functioning. Which means, there's no basis for LOK, but there is for LOA. Surely a Buddhist can understand that? It's Buddhism 101. It is Buddhism 101.That's why your accounts are Dunning Kruger. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 22, 2024 20:14:13 GMT -5
... What is more important is the anatta vs. karma dilemma in the Buddhist doctrine and how ... Wiki says: - Karma, rebirth and anattā
The Buddha emphasized both karma and anattā doctrines.[3] The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging essence as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no essence, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.
My interpretation is that Buddha meant that " there is a non-physical essence", that " it changes / evolves", that " it is materialized into the physical", that " it is subject to successive rebirths, influenced by the change / evolvement resulted from previous experience". I think that " there is no essence", as stated in the wiki comment, which reminds of Wu Wei's interpretation of the Diamond Sutra's pattern, is a distortion caused by the misunderstanding of the concept that the physical reality (and every single thing in it) is the materialization of a non-physical reality (and corresponding non-physical "essences"). Paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra pattern: when Buddha talks about material things (matter), Buddha talks about the non-material things, from which those material things appear. In Buddhist philosophy, one aspect is part of other aspects, so you can't cover karma theory without covering no-self, dependent origins and so forth. It's just that discussions are elaborate because they have thousands of years of development. The more recent telling in the LOA discourse is more vague and ambiguous because it hasn't developed for centuries. For example, where LOA says alignment, Buddhism has a developed discourse of purification, and where LOA apparently is impersonal, Buddhism has a developed discourse on anatta, but of course, the principle is the same regardless of it being karma or LOA theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 20:34:57 GMT -5
Well, do you doubt the JC miracle stories too? If you do, then fine, at least you're being consistent. And I will respect that. In case you don't believe it, how would you explain stigmata and events of bilocation by contemporary saints? Here's from Patanjali, I'm sure you can relate to at least some degree: (from book 3, on divine powers aka siddhis): Now, this is all presented in a very logical, even scientific way. And if you read verse 3.38, then you'll see the JC connection. And JC is often seen as a yogi or avatar. And avatars are said to have total conscious control over all their physical aspects of their beingness. And Patanjali explains how that is. In a sense, this is some kind of higher alchemy, not that different from the destruction of karma alchemy that you tend to described. You are just not aware of the greater implications, it seems. However, people like RM usually discourage their followers from following that route, because it is based on the misconception of being a self and therefore those practices are only reinforcing that false sense of self and cannot lead to liberation. The meditations described by lolz and Pants' have much in common. I've written a story on here about a synch that involves the JC story and my thoughts on miracles (my take on it ultimately, is amusement). One of the objections to you presentation on the topic are based on that there are many charlatans that mimic what Pants is suggesting to fool people. One example is the walking on thorns or hot coals. There are rational explanations for those abilities. I find all of that blurred matters-of-degree along various spectra. My mind is open, although I understand the closed minds. That's not a valid objection though, it's a strawman. I agree with the spectrum perspective though, I've mentioned as much to Lolly already. So people tend to go with that logic up to a certain degree, but at some point they stop short and don't want to follow thru all the way, for whatever reason, as Patanjali does. One reason might be attachment to current scientific dogmas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 20:44:21 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). His disclaimer of sree is fishy.  He's a troll, no matter how you look at it. And he has sealed his fate with his last post. That dude is up to no good. And we don't have the resources anymore to moderate that kind of game playing. Peter is basically inactive, ZD is retired, and I'll be away again shortly. So who is going to babysit ice cream man? No one. So, adios! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 20:51:33 GMT -5
Interesting observation. I often see people using QM as proof for LOA being legit and scientific, but I don't think it's that simple. And Seth is not a solipsist, if that's your concern. Seth has this concept of CU's, units of consciousness, as the smallest building blocks of this or any universe. So you could take this as some kind of basic, objective reality. He also talks about 'vitality', something that we would call life force, and once described the physical world as 'solidified vitality'. And that's a rather clever and also poetic of way of expression that pretty much nails it, IMO. And speaking of nails, Seth's quote about the nail on the window sill is what kicked off our perpetual aliveness debate, hehe... That's basically the lila perspective, the world as the divine play of God. Watts was a big promoter of that, but also Niz and especially Ramakrishna, even Ramana used it extensively. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)As for instant manifestations, Seth would explain it by jumping timelines maybe, and Abe by referring to the Vortex (quantum field?), where it already exists, but (in Abe terms) your senses cannot see it yet, or (in Seth terms) your senses haven't constructed it yet, or (in QM terms) ____ [fill in the blank]. Alignment, in this context, is the "self-approval" of all of the other atoms within your perception sharing in your "self-approval".  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 21:02:35 GMT -5
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. So, I noticed the experience what you're describing in the months that involved the sudden disappearance of the imposter. A very blissful time. No surprise that this leads to much less moment-by-moment resistance. That never completely went away, and as we discussed once years ago "you can only go through the gateless gate but once". But notice how in each these descriptions of instantaneous manifestation, you have to resort to the description of a process. Yes, it's always a process if action is involved. And you wouldn't expect to get your thirst quenched without any action right? Similarly with money. People believe that they have to work hard for money. So that's what they will have to do then. And what does usually happen when they bump into an opportunity where they can get money for little or no work? They reject it, because there must be something wrong here, money is not supposed to come to you without effort, without having earned it, there has to be some pain before there can be any gain, right? Just think of all the people who 'by accident' found a bag of money in the street, on a park bench or in an airport or train station and what do they usually do? Do they say "Oh wow, thank you universe!"? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 21:19:36 GMT -5
... What is more important is the anatta vs. karma dilemma in the Buddhist doctrine and how ... Wiki says: - Karma, rebirth and anattā
The Buddha emphasized both karma and anattā doctrines.[3] The Buddha criticized the doctrine that posited an unchanging essence as a subject as the basis of rebirth and karmic moral responsibility, which he called "atthikavāda". He also criticized the materialistic doctrine that denied the existence of both soul and rebirth, and thereby denied karmic moral responsibility, which he calls "natthikavāda". Instead, the Buddha asserted that there is no essence, but there is rebirth for which karmic moral responsibility is a must. In the Buddha's framework of karma, right view and right actions are necessary for liberation.
My interpretation is that Buddha meant that " there is a non-physical essence", that " it changes / evolves", that " it is materialized into the physical", that " it is subject to successive rebirths, influenced by the change / evolvement resulted from previous experience". I think that " there is no essence", as stated in the wiki comment, which reminds of Wu Wei's interpretation of the Diamond Sutra's pattern, is a distortion caused by the misunderstanding of the concept that the physical reality (and every single thing in it) is the materialization of a non-physical reality (and corresponding non-physical "essences"). Paraphrasing the Diamond Sutra pattern: when Buddha talks about material things (matter), Buddha talks about the non-material things, from which those material things appear. Nobody really knows today what the Buddha actually taught, I think even Lolly agreed on that. What we have then is different interpretations or schools of thought that loosely fit under the umbrella called Buddhism. Notice how the kind of Buddhism Lolly promotes is totally at odds with Zen, for example. But both go under the same name of Buddhism. There is, quite obviously, an exoteric and an esoteric doctrine. And it seems to me that Lolly understands the exoteric doctrine very well and also want to integrate it with the esoteric doctrine. But that is not going to happen, because the exoteric doctrine (karma, reincarnation) represents the personal perspective, and the esoteric doctrine (no self, no creation) represents the impersonal perspective. And there's no bridging these two possible, all that can be done is talking about them separately, in their respective contexts. Also, nobody really knows if all those scriptures are actually authentic. If it wasn't for the Chinese who were well organized and very skilled in preserving things, a lot of those scriptures we like to quote these days wouldn't even have reached us. And the Chinese received those teachings several (!) centuries after they had been first taught in India. And you know a bit about the Chinese language by now and how difficult it is to translate Indo-European terms into Chinese. Actually, the point WWW makes about the Advaita traditions (be it Buddhistic, Vedantic or Taoist) is that they teach that there are no 'things' to begin with, which relieves you from the need to find a creation theory that explains how 'things' come to be and cease to be. So try reading those sutras from that perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 21:23:25 GMT -5
Just read a bit further in this thread and you'll see that Lolly and I are pretty much in alignment on the alignment topic. Our only disagreement is on the karma topic and the witness perspective. From the witness perspective, as I use that term, SVP and also karma are seen as a fiction. So you wouldn't come away with the conclusion that you should work on your reactivity in order to reduce your karma load. That would be illogical. But that is what I hear Lolly saying. So what he refers to as the witness perspective, can only be what I call the false witness perspective, i.e. a different level of identity poker, a broader and more expansive personal perspective, but not the impersonal perspective, which would be the true witness perspective. And then there's our disagreement about LOA not being LOK, but at this point, the argument is beyond silly. But in the scope of things discussed, that's not really important. What is more important is the anatta vs. karma dilemma in the Buddhist doctrine and how Lolly resolves it. So this is where I question his 'sort of meditation'. Even someone in the false witnessing position can discover by meditation that they are mistaking something that is bad for them as "feeling good" at the time. A substance abuser, for example. Absolument! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 21:50:00 GMT -5
Correct. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand. This is spirituality 101 after all, and absolute beginner level. And those instances of healing you mention are also well documented, even by doctors (see Moorjani). I'm reading an interesting book right now, The Body Electric, it's basically about how healing works, and specifically about how salamanders regrow limbs. There was one case where a salamander fully regrew one limb several times in just three months, I think. That sounds fantastical at first, but once you understand the forces at work and how they work, nothing fantastical about it, especially if you use scientific terms instead of spiritual terms, e.g. replace 'life force' by 'voltage'. So as with Patanjali, this is not make-belief, it can actually be explained scientifically. Unfortunately, as with the previous karma discussion, it doesn't seem Lolly actually understands the argument, not to mention the constant logical errors in his argumentation. It's potentially an interesting discussion, but under such circumstances a total waste of time, I'm afraid. That's very interesting. The way I see it, if something unusual happens, then the science must expand to explain it. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it will be unexplainable after the event. The power of 'mind' (in the broadest sense) is infinite, and while the 'individual mind' is necessarily limited so that we can have a finite experience, I'm sure...as humans... we haven't gotten anywhere close to maximizing our mind-potential. It doesn't even seem to me that there's much in the way of resources put into investigating the idea of 'placebo/nocebo', which I find very odd really. Think about it, what if there has been done a lot of research already, and what if it is all well documented but no one wants to peer review it. Would you still be able to read about it in mainstream science journals? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2024 22:00:10 GMT -5
Volition assumes doership. Doership assumes a doer. A doer is the personal context. Therefore, as soon as you bring volition into the mix, you are automatically talking in the deliberate creation context. Which is why you keep confusing LOA with deliberate creation. And then, of course, you don't see the difference to LOK, because LOK is all about deliberate creation. And the universe is not run on LOK, because the universe is not run by a personal creator. So, there is no self and there is no personal creator. It's all pure impersonal functioning. Which means, there's no basis for LOK, but there is for LOA. Surely a Buddhist can understand that? It's Buddhism 101. It is Buddhism 101.That's why your accounts are Dunning Kruger. That your presentation doesn't pass the Buddhism 101 test isn't actually such a big problem. That can be dealt with. What is a big problem though is that your presentation also doesn't pass the logic 101 test, because that's hard to deal with, if at all. So we are back to agree to disagree. |
|
