|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 14, 2024 20:58:45 GMT -5
The Most Sought After The greatest profession in the world is a doctor of medicine because people will always consult a physician if their bodies are ill. ... A non-dualist, a priest, a spiritualist? Nah, they are only for entertainment. Thoughts ... The purpose of any health condition is to draw the patient's attention to a psychic or psychological element; that element may be in the future, the present, or / and the past. Any attempt to address only a physical condition won't solve the psychic / psychological root cause, so that will manifest again in the same or different physical way (the late dr. Sarno had a glimpse of the connection between the physical and psychological, got results, and developed a theory, firstly for the back-pain). How do your comments go together with your hare krishna? To me they seem they don't. While I am examining my patients, do chest auscultations, I chant silently Hare Krshna. Impressions of their illnesses arise. I write down the medicines on my prescription pad the names of the medicines reasonably appropriate to alleviate, comfort, heal the illnesses they have. Instead of singing, " Come Holy Spirit I need You. Come Holy Spirit I pray. Come with Your strength and Your power. Come in Your own special way." I do not do this while treating my patients. They don't know I chant Hare Krishna as I go along treating them. Plus with my medical skills, it works all the time. Reminds me this story. " Who is better, lawyer or doctor? Why it's the doctor! Because when the lawyer loses a case. The client says the lawyer's not good. But when the doctor's patient dies, the doctor says, it's God's will. " |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 14, 2024 23:02:45 GMT -5
... A sage simply doesn't give hypotheticals any credence because the focus is upon what is actually happening in the present moment. I always get a laugh when an announcer at a football game says something like, "If the receiver had caught that pass.....such and such might have happened." My wife and I both laugh at such comments and will sometimes say to each other, "But he did not catch the pass!"  I recall your recent writing about coauthoring a financial book with your daughter, and your mentioning about someone's missed opportunity to sell his house, and other such hypotheticals. To me, that seems contradictory to what you wrote in this post. Also, your laughing at others' hypotheticals, that contradict the reality that you believe to be fact, reminds a couple of video compilations about some people laughing pre-election in 2016 and 2024. Being aware of how that looks after the fact, of how emotions might change, I pay attention not to laugh at others' foolishness. Point it if you intend to help, but don't laugh it. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 14, 2024 23:44:53 GMT -5
AI, aliens, intelligence, purpose, explanations, ... Puffer Fish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2024 8:56:06 GMT -5
Well, if we want to be very strict, then it doesn't actually work in English (Krishna/Cancer). And it doesn't even seem to work in Malay or Tagalog (krishna/kanser). It doesn't even work phonetically. So you are taking great liberties with your theory in order to make it work. But it may still work for you, because you seem to fully believe in it. However, it's not likely going to work for others, because the only principle at work here is belief, not fortuitous linguistics. It is a matter of transliteration: ṣ / sh 1) कृष्ण kṛṣṇa (p. 74) कृष्ण kṛṣṇa कृष्ण krish-ná n. black; dark; w. paksha, dark half of the month (from full to new moon); m. (kríshna) black antelope; N. of a god (incarnation of Vishnu): du. Krishna and Arguna; â, f. kind of leech; N. of several plants; ep. of Draupadî, and of Durgâ; n. blackness, darkness. Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/;[12] Sanskrit: कृष्ण, IAST: Kṛṣṇa [ˈkr̩ʂɳɐ]) is a major deity in Hinduism. (wiki)  Also, a post from the same author, 12+ years ago: "Moderator Action : Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic." 
Yes, you can choose different transliterations that suit your purpose and make it work. And if you are really clever, you can connect anything to anything. But the fact remains that Melvin's example is a bit of a stretch. If it would work in Hindi, or at least in Tagalog or English, he may have a point. But since it only works with a random transliteration from another random language that has to be combined with his native language, it is highly contrived.
"Moved to Random Ramblings" ... I guess that's the equivalent to our "Pettifoggery" thread... same nonsense, different forum |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2024 9:02:14 GMT -5
Seems you are looking for (s)elf-actualization. There is no such thing. The only thing we truly have the capacity for is to be transparent...to Self. In that transparency lies the possibility for unique gifts, talents, and abilities to flow nthrough your character...naturally and without effort. The character of Jesus was fully transparent " Where you see me, you see the Father" That is why he could heal and perform miracles and such. He was showing that if you too become transparent to the Father, to Self, you could do mighty works as well. , Jesus was very clear on this. He said if you seek to save yourself, you lose yourself. The church is full of people who think they are saving their self. They don't have a clue as to how it all works. In at least three different places Paul writes about the old man (self) and the new man in Christ. (John the Baptist also understood, he said I must decrease, he must increase). Paul understood what Jesus was talking about. Jesus taught mainly in parables, which were designed to sneak past the self-old man, and reach the new man. So the way he taught confounded people who lived from self, like the Pharisees, and simple people could understand. When he met Simon, Simon was functioning through the self, the old man. But Jesus could see who Simon really was, his true self (the new man in Christ), so he only communicated to the hidden true self, who Simon actually was, Peter. And Simon eventually became Peter. Jesus told the Pharisees exactly who they were, as self, as the old man, "you are like a white-washed tombs, pretty on the outside, but on the inside you are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness". I know and have posted for 15 years here, self is a dead end, is nothing and is going nowhere. I agree with ZD that self is imaginary. But self is formed from memories, neural connections in the brain. self is just a complicated tangle of copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. But this does not negate the influence and control of self, most people function through this imaginary self. I have said nothing otherwise in 15 years here. People function just like on autopilot from their small s self, their programming. And ZD has said nothing otherwise than, that's OK, that's just the way it is, it's just the Whole doing it's thing. This makes me want to puke. I see ZD has replied to me, haven't read it yet, but I probably answered him herein.
There's a context mix there, can you see it?
When ZD says the self is imaginary he does that from the prior to self perspective. When SDP says the self is imaginary, he does that from the self perspective. That's why to SDP self is a big problem that has to be dealt with, but to ZD there is no problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2024 9:07:11 GMT -5
My prediction is that when everyone and everything everywhere will be digital, analog will be the new luxury. There is a pretty good Bruce Willis film about this, the name escapes me, I'll have to look it up, Surrogates, 2009. But people did not live IRL. They "bought" a robot-avatar, who was invariably handsome or pretty, and they sat at home, for safety, and controlled the avatar in life. If I recall, he got tired of living through the avatar, and wanted to experience life himself. His wife was horrified at this. Good film, maybe about 15 years old. I know that movie. It's an interesting analogy to the fake witness position in non-duality that I sometimes mention. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2024 9:25:57 GMT -5
The error I see in your line of argument is that you are comparing a mythical figure or a story (aka figment of your imagination) to your perception and beliefs about others or another story (aka another figment of your imagination). IOW, it's all just happening in your head - the perceived problem, the proposed solution and the imagined result. None of that is actual or real. I just use Jesus, as most of you have knowledge of the scriptures. It doesn't really matter if he was real or not, if he isn't real, then the author was a very wise guy. When I started here I said I don't write about how-to-do practices (#1), I don't share personal experiences (#2), but I write from experience, and (book) knowledge, but I won't draw a line as to what's what. I've kept to #1 precisely, #2, mostly. But I had 25 years of "Jesus"-like direct ~in the flesh~ experience. So I know whereof I write. I don't care if anyone ~believes~ me. I just post. The path to the truth and knowing truth comes through the ~person-as-a-whole~ (the mind-absent conditioning, and the body). It doesn't come through the self (conditioning, the software), I agree on that. A aid, the self is a dead end, is nothing, and is going nowhere. And it's sad that, despite all this, people still continue to function through-their-self, their conditioning. All I've got to communicate with, here, are squiggles on the computer screen. I think your main mistake in these discussions is you conflating SR and alignment. And you are not alone, there are others who do that, too. And there's no way that you can stop this unless you have a direct reference for SR. As the AI (thru Melvin) mentioned the other day, Yoga (alignment) and Advaita (SR) are complementary. One doesn't depend on the other, but in combination, one enhances the other so to speak. I've talked about this before, there are 4 basic scenarios or 'levels': 1) SR and alignment 2) SR but no alignment 3) No SR but alignment 4) No SR and no alignment Level #1 is basically the Avatar level, which is extremely rare. Anandamayi Ma comes to mind, or Jesus, if you will. Level #2 is more common, especially on the internet. Those are your "non-dualists". Level #3 is even more common, because that's something you can work at. Level #4 is the most common, it's the typical seeker position. It's basically the "hungry ghost" position. Your position is #4. Which means to you SR is a myth, it doesn't exist, because from the #4 position, SR is the unthinkable. So you are essentially aiming at reaching #3, because that's what's thinkable from your current position. You see, #1 would be SR without a personal touch, #2 would be SR with a personal touch. Which, from the SR perspective, is same same but different, as ZD keeps telling you. But from your #4 position, #1 looks like #3 and #2 looks like #4. And that's a difference like heaven and hell, as you keep telling us. So you see, it's quite natural that we keep talking past each other. It can't be any other way. And I think after 15 years, maybe it's time you give it a rest. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 15, 2024 9:31:29 GMT -5
I basically replied to you in my reply to JLY above (you can read it, or not). This is not rocket science. I just don't buy your view that the actions of the person/body are a result of the Whole. Most people act and react from their own conditioning, the default mode most people operate in. Yes, I agree, the self is all a fiction, is imaginary. The self exists as the network of neural connections, the way ~they~ have been programmed, mostly from birth to age six (the false sense of self is mostly formed by then, and after that, most further change is just moving lawn chairs on the Titanic. We agree on so much. I think this is your blind spot, you don't see how our conditioning controls almost the whole of our lives. We are just mostly reaction-machines. Now, yes, you are different, I'd say you about 95% live through the true self (more or less), and I understand how/why. But most people live through their conditioning, about 97%. The SR do not have to keep living through their conditioning. I would put it this way, "Most people live in their heads and think that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate volitional me." This is what we call "the consensus paradigm." Awakening from this paradigm is realizing that there is no actual separation of any kind except through imagination. There is no escape from conditioning for a human being. If a sage walks under a low doorway and hits his/her head two or three times, the body will be conditioned to spontaneously duck when it approaches that doorway. A sage only escapes the conditioning that created a belief in the consensus paradigm. There are also many other forms of conditioning created by thinking habits that can similarly be left behind. Examples are words like "if," "should," "ought," etc. A sage simply doesn't give hypotheticals any credence because the focus is upon what is actually happening in the present moment. I always get a laugh when an announcer at a football game says something like, "If the receiver had caught that pass.....such and such might have happened." My wife and I both laugh at such comments and will sometimes say to each other, "But he did not catch the pass!" You are sitting there in your eternal now and laughing at those poor souls lost in time?  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 15, 2024 10:49:07 GMT -5
... A sage simply doesn't give hypotheticals any credence because the focus is upon what is actually happening in the present moment. I always get a laugh when an announcer at a football game says something like, "If the receiver had caught that pass.....such and such might have happened." My wife and I both laugh at such comments and will sometimes say to each other, "But he did not catch the pass!" I recall your recent writing about coauthoring a financial book with your daughter, and your mentioning about someone's missed opportunity to sell his house, and other such hypotheticals. To me, that seems contradictory to what you wrote in this post. Also, your laughing at others' hypotheticals, that contradict the reality that you believe to be fact, reminds a couple of video compilations about some people laughing pre-election in 2016 and 2024. Being aware of how that looks after the fact, of how emotions might change, I pay attention not to laugh at others' foolishness. Point it if you intend to help, but don't laugh it. The difference between you and ZD is that you are mind-led while ZD is not, and that's your hang-up with him. While you live by a set of moral beliefs that dictate how you'll behave in future situations, premeditatedly, ZD is unattached to any such belief system and takes his cues strictly from the present moment, responding authentically and spontaneously. This is what Christ meant when he said you must 'become as a little child' to enter the kingdom of heaven (the here and now). Little children respond to the world spontaneously and directly, in the moment. Such minds are free, clear, at peace, and joyful - an enigma to those attached to their mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 15, 2024 12:09:12 GMT -5
I would put it this way, "Most people live in their heads and think that reality is composed of separate things being seen by a separate volitional me." This is what we call "the consensus paradigm." Awakening from this paradigm is realizing that there is no actual separation of any kind except through imagination. There is no escape from conditioning for a human being. If a sage walks under a low doorway and hits his/her head two or three times, the body will be conditioned to spontaneously duck when it approaches that doorway. A sage only escapes the conditioning that created a belief in the consensus paradigm. There are also many other forms of conditioning created by thinking habits that can similarly be left behind. Examples are words like "if," "should," "ought," etc. A sage simply doesn't give hypotheticals any credence because the focus is upon what is actually happening in the present moment. I always get a laugh when an announcer at a football game says something like, "If the receiver had caught that pass.....such and such might have happened." My wife and I both laugh at such comments and will sometimes say to each other, "But he did not catch the pass!" You are sitting there in your eternal now and laughing at those poor souls lost in time? How callous!  (** shakes head sadly **) |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 15, 2024 13:19:08 GMT -5
I recall your recent writing about coauthoring a financial book with your daughter, and your mentioning about someone's missed opportunity to sell his house, and other such hypotheticals. To me, that seems contradictory to what you wrote in this post. Also, your laughing at others' hypotheticals, that contradict the reality that you believe to be fact, reminds a couple of video compilations about some people laughing pre-election in 2016 and 2024. Being aware of how that looks after the fact, of how emotions might change, I pay attention not to laugh at others' foolishness. Point it if you intend to help, but don't laugh it. The difference between you and ZD is that you are mind-led while ZD is not, and that's your hang-up with him. While you live by a set of moral beliefs that dictate how you'll behave in future situations, premeditatedly, ZD is unattached to any such belief system and takes his cues strictly from the present moment, responding authentically and spontaneously. This is what Christ meant when he said you must 'become as a little child' to enter the kingdom of heaven (the here and now). Little children respond to the world spontaneously and directly, in the moment. Such minds are free, clear, at peace, and joyful - an enigma to those attached to their mind. I believe you mischaracterized my position. I also believe you misinterpreted Jesus' alleged teaching there. I think that the discrepancy between our views on reality is too large to discuss it more than, occasionally, on very narrow specific concrete examples. To me, a litmus test for one's expressed beliefs about reality, is if those beliefs are in agreement with that person's behavior and claims in his everyday life. My observation of the state of such agreements is subjective, and I honestly keep an eye on mine to keep me on a constructive path. I also subjectively observe discrepancies in others', and occasionally point them with a constructive intention. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 15, 2024 15:28:32 GMT -5
There's a saying that "truth is stranger than fiction" which means there are certain things in our lives, experiences, bizarre or otherwise improbable that defy explanation. Well, if we want to be very strict, then it doesn't actually work in English (Krishna/Cancer). And it doesn't even seem to work in Malay or Tagalog (krishna/kanser). It doesn't even work phonetically. So you are taking great liberties with your theory in order to make it work. But it may still work for you, because you seem to fully believe in it. However, it's not likely going to work for others, because the only principle at work here is belief, not fortuitous linguistics. Actually, to him, it matters only what attracts his attention, and only his interpretation, even if he uses an incorrect spelling. To others, it matters only what attracted their attention, be it the original reference or someone's interpretation of it, then for each one of them, it matters only that one's interpretation, even if based on erroneous premises, or misunderstandings. The knowledge and guidance, for everyone, comes only from one's own inner source of knowledge and guidance, while the rest are props, a means to an end. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 15, 2024 15:35:19 GMT -5
Jesus' 'become as a little child' doesn't mean your reverting to a child's innate ignorance, but shedding away your limiting beliefs, many arising from the conditioning while growing up, and so opening to the lessons you enrolled here to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 15, 2024 15:53:00 GMT -5
Jesus' 'become as a little child' doesn't mean your reverting to a child's innate ignorance, but shedding away your limiting beliefs, many arising from the conditioning while growing up, and so opening to the lessons you enrolled here to learn. He was referring to being free of attachment to mental concepts and beliefs as a child is before they grow up to become attached to beliefs and mental concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 15, 2024 15:57:25 GMT -5
Well, if we want to be very strict, then it doesn't actually work in English (Krishna/Cancer). And it doesn't even seem to work in Malay or Tagalog (krishna/kanser). It doesn't even work phonetically. So you are taking great liberties with your theory in order to make it work. But it may still work for you, because you seem to fully believe in it. However, it's not likely going to work for others, because the only principle at work here is belief, not fortuitous linguistics. Actually, to him, it matters only what attracts his attention, and only his interpretation, even if he uses an incorrect spelling. To others, it matters only what attracted their attention, be it the original reference or someone's interpretation of it, then for each one of them, it matters only that one's interpretation, even if based on erroneous premises, or misunderstandings. The knowledge and guidance, for everyone, comes only from one's own inner source of knowledge and guidance, while the rest are props, a means to an end. Not just writing the words KRSNA/KANSR but saying it. By saying KRSNA, KRSNA, KRSNA it can reverse the said words KANSR, KANSR, KANSR to KRSNA, KRSNA, KRSNA. To me, it's not impossible that the said illness Cancer can be reversed by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra. Even in his last breath, Ramana Maharishi chanted the OM mantra. What I am trying to point is that there is no harm in chanting the Hare Krishna mantra if one is diagnosed with CANCER/KANSR. That's why I said, " Truth is stranger than fiction, " because such determination from the CANCER/KANSR patient to get a cure could work if done sincerely. So, why not give it a try instead of discouraging it. |
|
(** shakes head sadly **)