|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2024 6:20:17 GMT -5
First of all, why should I take you seriously if you pose a question like this?  Your perceptions happen according to patterns that can be noticed and expressed as these abstractions you refer to, but you, are not a machine. I will try to explain, as you have brought this up at least a dozen times. We are born as a baby, as essence, the living and growing individual. A baby collects data about the world through the five senses, through impressions. This data is stored in the neural network, the connections between neurons, the way all information is stored. Impressions feed essence. Millions of connections are made a minute. Picture a net, a neural network. About age six impressions no longer reach essence, they fall on the net, are captured and absorbed by the net. So essence ceases to be fed. Our sense of identity shifts from essence to the cultural self (so called because it is formed from the info of culture). This is the fall of man, spoken of in Genesis, it happens again to almost all men and women. My latest invented word for the artificial self, is the self-avatar, because it actually is a kid of avatar. In Greek theater, they wore a persona, a mask, to portray different characters. So the artificial self is a mask, a persona, it is not who we actually are, essence. Now, to a very great extent, the self-avatar is made-from abstractions, conceptuality, it's formed from these connections between neurons, which is stored data. So the self-avatar is made-from copies, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies, just data. This, is a machine ("garbage in, garbage out"). No, as explained, ~you~ are not a machine, the true self is not a machine. But a lot of people are. We are all part essence, part persona, different ratios. Some people are 90% essence, 10% persona. Some people are 90% persona, 10% essence. (Or 80-20, 70-30, 60-40, 50-50, or vice versa). Gurdjieff said some people's essence is so covered over, they are essentially dead. So, I don't know why you keep telling me I'm not a machine, you're preaching to the choir. But you can see in people when they are operating merely from their programming, you can recognize when people are talking on autopilot. And you can see it in people when even their programming is degrading, dying. They pause, and hesitate, struggle to find the words, and then say: We finally beat Medicare. People with severe Alzheimer's or another kind of dementia, mostly operate from the programming, the person is no longer there. A hundred years ago Gurdjieff called this dying in thirds. The mind can die, the emotions can die. The body can die, of course then the emotions and the mind die also. Shunryu Suzuki (Zen Mind Beginner's Mind guy) was asked, How much ego do we need? He answered, enough not to step in front of a bus. The mind thinking incessantly on-its-on, the monkey mind, that's the machine looping. Get a song stuck in your head? That's the machine. Chasing? That's the machine. Spiritual practice? That's reversing the process whereby the self-avatar was formed, and taking back one's attention, for essence. You then cease to feed the self-avatar, which is maintained by taking your attention through, thoughts, negative feelings/negative emotions, excess bodily tension, people, places, things, events. The reason that I keep pointing out that your interest is in the machinery is because one can have an intricate, detailed understanding of how it all works and still be caught up in it. Like Jed said, it's the damnedest thing. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 26, 2024 6:23:25 GMT -5
In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my world view, and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it  .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all.  Holy fking s**t Batman (that's way toned down, from my first impression), no, he's not! He's merely pointing out inconsistencies. I tried to make clear he's not talking about philosophical simulation. He's using it as a kind of metaphor. The world is very, very real, that's his whole point. The world is a kind of school. If it wasn't actually ~real~, we wouldn't learn. This is one reason I also posted the 2nd video, about Maya. (It's shorter). I think there are mental instabilities expressed in what I hear some non dualists talk about in reflection of their behaviours. This goes back to the question of why do non duality teachers who believe they are not even here try and teach other's who are not even here, that they are not here. I mean there are lots of examples that don't make any sense at all (depending on what has been said and has been regarded as an absolute truth). In the video he speaks about life's purpose. There are purposes integrated within experience. Now like he says if you live in life with the belief that nothing is real there will be dissociation had from self and life. You certainly wouldn't have teachers, teaching non existent peeps. Teaching is a life purpose. Don't you love the irony. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2024 7:05:21 GMT -5
I believe that there is an endless number of probable realities, and you perceive only the one that you resonate with. There is no single "what occurs". Even more: what you perceive now to occur isn't necessarily what you'll consciously recall later. As you evolve, you get more in touch with your inner senses, and you perceive more, understand more, can more, do more; your reach expands. Inavalan's probly still got me blocked, but you might point out to him that the multi-worlds notion is no more disprovable than God or the simulation theory. It's one thing to want and demand proof, that is what it is, and misses the point of the existential question, but the converse, a theory that cannot be disproven, is just the flip side of that particular coin. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2024 7:31:30 GMT -5
Holy fking s**t Batman (that's way toned down, from my first impression), no, he's not! He's merely pointing out inconsistencies. I tried to make clear he's not talking about philosophical simulation. He's using it as a kind of metaphor. The world is very, very real, that's his whole point. The world is a kind of school. If it wasn't actually ~real~, we wouldn't learn. This is one reason I also posted the 2nd video, about Maya. (It's shorter). I think there are mental instabilities expressed in what I hear some non dualists talk about in reflection of their behaviours. This goes back to the question of why do non duality teachers who believe they are not even here try and teach other's who are not even here, that they are not here. I mean there are lots of examples that don't make any sense at all (depending on what has been said and has been regarded as an absolute truth). In the video he speaks about life's purpose. There are purposes integrated within experience. Now like he says if you live in life with the belief that nothing is real there will be dissociation had from self and life. You certainly wouldn't have teachers, teaching non existent peeps. Teaching is a life purpose. Don't you love the irony. The point of the pointing is to get people interested in what the common mind distracts them from: the existential question. Most people would likely reject "there is only what you are", and most of those who wouldn't reject it have various misconceptions about it, some subtle, some, not-so-much. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 26, 2024 8:38:29 GMT -5
I think some folks would consider Jesus mentally ill if he showed up today.
I just wonder how Mr. Michaels knows it's a pick your ride carnival(simulator). Sounds like hokum. I'm not saying there isn't reincarnation. It just seems to me that only no-thing incarnates. Because that is all there is. Now there might be a process to it. Defined differently by various traditions. To me, it's irrelevant to the bottom line.
As to nondual statements, they are hard to come by. Language is inherently dualistic. RM uses the Self is real and the little self is not to point the latter to the Source. If you read enough of his dialogs you learn that it's just a useful hook, not true in the big picture.
But all pointers are two edged swords. If folks take them as gospel and don't do the work necessary to get past the intellect they begin to engage in nonsense a la early Jeff Foster. A whole lot of that going on.
I'm just curious about the acrimonious reaction. That's what would interest me the most.
Why I miss Reefs. He was a great help to me in that regard.
The only "me" needing defending is maya's version. Put that in your fruit cup, worse than a fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2024 9:47:14 GMT -5
I think some folks would consider Jesus mentally ill if he showed up today. I just wonder how Mr. Michaels knows it's a pick your ride carnival(simulator). Sounds like hokum. I'm not saying there isn't reincarnation. It just seems to me that only no-thing incarnates. Because that is all there is. Now there might be a process to it. Defined differently by various traditions. To me, it's irrelevant to the bottom line. As to nondual statements, they are hard to come by. Language is inherently dualistic. RM uses the Self is real and the little self is not to point the latter to the Source. If you read enough of his dialogs you learn that it's just a useful hook, not true in the big picture. But all pointers are two edged swords. If folks take them as gospel and don't do the work necessary to get past the intellect they begin to engage in nonsense a la early Jeff Foster. A whole lot of that going on. I'm just curious about the acrimonious reaction. That's what would interest me the most. Why I miss Reefs. He was a great help to me in that regard. The only "me" needing defending is maya's version. Put that in your fruit cup, worse than a fly. What I find annoying about the simulation theory is that the people who propound it are brighter intellects than mine but still can't see past the obvious flaws in it. And, I also found it annoying when 'dusty wrote how my "world view" fit into Mr. Video Schmuck's collective diagnosis. Oh well, guess I'm not enlightened after all. It was also a tar baby. Could I have responded without reflecting back the hostility embedded in what the guy said? Sure, but that wouldn't have been half as fun, not the least reason being that the guy (and 'dusty) seem to me to have been unconscious of having expressed it.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 26, 2024 10:12:30 GMT -5
I mostly disagree with Michaels' statements, but it attracted my attention that he claimed that non-dualism is considered to be based on Shankara's statement / quote: " Only Brahman is real; the world is an illusion" Per wikiquote.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara#Quotes : - Brahma satyam jagat mithyam, jivo brahmaiva naparah
Brahman (the existential substratum) is the only truth, the world is illusion, and there is ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual self.
The original Sanskrit, with google translation: | ब्रह्म सत्यं | Brahman is the truth | | जग न्मिथ्या | The world is false
| | जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः | The living entity is Brahman and no other |
To me, the quote says that the conscious-you is the only real in the physical-world that you perceive. Which I agree with. So, statements like "everything is One / THIS / THAT", "there is no separation" are not in agreement with Shankara's quote. I don't know what Shankara meant by his quote. When there is only one, it can't be said that everything is one, nor that there is no separation. Everything that you perceive through your physical senses, is your psyche represented in your framework of perception. To change anything in what you perceive, your psyche has to change. It isn't that you could do some magic to change what you perceive. I agree with Michaels that trying to merge with Brahman is an error caused by ignorance, be it innocence or foolishness, but I disagree with his argumentation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2024 11:25:52 GMT -5
I think some folks would consider Jesus mentally ill if he showed up today. I just wonder how Mr. Michaels knows it's a pick your ride carnival(simulator). Sounds like hokum. I'm not saying there isn't reincarnation. It just seems to me that only no-thing incarnates. Because that is all there is. Now there might be a process to it. Defined differently by various traditions. To me, it's irrelevant to the bottom line. As to nondual statements, they are hard to come by. Language is inherently dualistic. RM uses the Self is real and the little self is not to point the latter to the Source. If you read enough of his dialogs you learn that it's just a useful hook, not true in the big picture. But all pointers are two edged swords. If folks take them as gospel and don't do the work necessary to get past the intellect they begin to engage in nonsense a la early Jeff Foster. A whole lot of that going on. I'm just curious about the acrimonious reaction. That's what would interest me the most. Why I miss Reefs. He was a great help to me in that regard. The only "me" needing defending is maya's version. Put that in your fruit cup, worse than a fly. What I find annoying about the simulation theory is that the people who propound it are brighter intellects than mine but still can't see past the obvious flaws in it. And, I also found it annoying when 'dusty wrote how my "world view" fit into Mr. Video Schmuck's collective diagnosis. Oh well, guess I'm not enlightened after all. It was also a tar baby. Could I have responded without reflecting back the hostility embedded in what the guy said? Sure, but that wouldn't have been half as fun, not the least reason being that the guy (and 'dusty) seem to me to have been unconscious of having expressed it. Michaels is not proposing we live in a simulation, an actual computer simulation. He's using it as a metaphor. The deepest aspect of Self does not incarnate, Paul Brunton, who actually knew Ramana, uses the term Oversoul. What incarnates is an aspect of Self, a "piece". So the "piece" that incarnates, is an avatar (like in a video game, not as a Hindu God incarnating). So we live in a rocks and stones world, flesh and blood, we don't live in a computer program. And as an adult, the life most of us live is not even the avatar, it's the false self, the conditioned programming, a machine. So, our life, is actually a kind of "computer" game, Michaels compared it to a flight simulator. When we die, the *Game Over* sign pops up, the false self dies, the avatar goes back to the Oversoul (the data is downloaded into the Causal body). The avatar gets ready for the next incarnation. The goal in the end is for the current avatar, while in incarnation, to merge with the Oversoul, to ~become~ the Oversoul. {That's what happened to Buddha, and so he remembered all his past lives. And he considered, f***, how is anyone ever going to get this?, I may as well just forget trying to tell anybody about all this. To teach or not to teach, that is the question? But he decided to try. He left out the metaphysics, "Just the bare bone facts", the how to end suffering. He was once asked what he knew. He picked up a handful of leaves. He said, look at all the trees of the forest, that is what I know, this is what I teach }. That's Michaels in a nutshell, Michaels is sharing one branch on one tree. He disparages ND in that ND subverts the whole process, basically ending in a dead end virtually useless life. And that's tenka's main point also. So, yes, if upon SR you 'go back to' an ordinary life, that's a loss as far as the Oversoul is concerned, ordinary lives are a dime a dozen. The ordinary self cannot remember any past lives because it has had no past lives. I'm sorry if all that hurts your feelings. But, some advice from Terry Cole-Whittaker (and Eleanor Roosevelt, among others), which I practically live by, especially here (ST's): "What you think of me is none of my business". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edit, 10:05 AM 8-27-24: I'm going to assume anybody SR understands no SVP. You would also think they also operate from the knowledge of no SVP. No-separate is pretty easy to see. No-person is a little more complicated. Let's agree that there is a self in some sense, when I get off work, I go to my house and not ZD's house. I think it's Gary Weber who found data for the existence of self-circuits in the brain. They are just neural circuits, but from them we derive our-self, a person. But this is a mistake, this is the illusion that must be seen through. But here is the kicker, once seen, the circuits still exist, and still operate. The ND ~solution~ is that it doesn't matter, as long as you've seen the circuits don't constitute a self, there is no problem. For sdp, that's absurd, there's ~further~. But let's move on to no-volition. Seeing no-volition may be the most difficult. But here is where we ended up yesterday. No-volition means 99.999% of everybody, essentially, nobody has volition (nobody you will encounter in ordinary life). This has to permeate everything, it just becomes a way of operating in-the-world. So here is something to look at. Why does laughter get perturbed when sdp paints him with a certain brush? Why does laughter even care? If the principle of no-volition operates, then sdp can't help posting as he does. That seems to be very telling. Now, I have a whole page of material that came to mind about no-self and no-volition, but I'll stop here, except this song came to mind. When we were young my sister sang incessantly, and this is one of the songs she sang: |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 26, 2024 11:45:59 GMT -5
The goal in the end is for the current avatar, while in incarnation, to merge with the Oversoul, to ~become~ the Oversoul. That's Michaels in a nutshell. I agree with Michaels that trying to merge with Brahman is an error caused by ignorance, be it innocence or foolishness, but I disagree with his argumentation. Isn't it fascinating how two men watch and hear the exact same video and hear and interpret completely different perspectives. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2024 12:02:20 GMT -5
The goal in the end is for the current avatar, while in incarnation, to merge with the Oversoul, to ~become~ the Oversoul. That's Michaels in a nutshell. I agree with Michaels that trying to merge with Brahman is an error caused by ignorance, be it innocence or foolishness, but I disagree with his argumentation. Isn't it fascinating how two men watch and hear the exact same video and hear and interpret completely different perspectives. Well, to be fair, Oversoul does not equal Brahman (the Oversoul is a kind of avatar of Brahman). laughter had a lot of questions. Presently, I'm not interested in watching the video again. But I probably eventually will. I'll look for the disagreement. If inavalan wants to point out the minute, I'll look at it. I highly suspect Michaels has downsized his paradigm, at least in this video. Basically [to add to my post above], ND eliminates all these levels from the One, to the incarnating self. Michaels is saying that's just not possible. That's probably why he sounds disparaging to laughter. In the interests of discussion, sdp has never crossed that bridge. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ What inavalan has pointed out in the Shankara quote, is that Michaels points out that ND leaves out the last part of the quote. And that last part makes all the difference. satch understands this, and that's the why of the name of the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 26, 2024 12:35:53 GMT -5
Isn't it fascinating how two men watch and hear the exact same video and hear and interpret completely different perspectives. Well, to be fair, Oversoul does not equal Brahman (the Oversoul is a kind of avatar of Brahman). laughter had a lot of questions. Presently, I'm not interested in watching the video again. But I probably eventually will. I'll look for the disagreement. If inavalan wants to point out the minute, I'll look at it. I highly suspect Michaels has downsized his paradigm, at least in this video. Basically [to add to my post above], ND eliminates all these levels from the One, to the incarnating self. Michaels is saying that's just not possible. That's probably why he sounds disparaging to laughter. In the interests of discussion, sdp has never crossed that bridge. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ What inavalan has pointed out in the Shankara quote, is that Michaels points out that ND leaves out the last part of the quote. And that last part makes all the difference. satch understands this, and that's the why of the name of the thread. About 5:25 I wasn't concerned with the truncation of the quote. I don't think it changes it. If anything, it alters the clarity of the first two statements, which I consider correct in regard to the physical world and the conscious-self while awake, the perceiver. EDIT: "The living entity is Brahman and no other" This serms pretty clear: living entity means the conscious-self while awake. It clarifies what Brahman is in the first statement, and confuses those who don't understand the first part of the quote. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 26, 2024 13:27:37 GMT -5
I think there are mental instabilities expressed in what I hear some non dualists talk about in reflection of their behaviours. This goes back to the question of why do non duality teachers who believe they are not even here try and teach other's who are not even here, that they are not here. I mean there are lots of examples that don't make any sense at all (depending on what has been said and has been regarded as an absolute truth). In the video he speaks about life's purpose. There are purposes integrated within experience. Now like he says if you live in life with the belief that nothing is real there will be dissociation had from self and life. You certainly wouldn't have teachers, teaching non existent peeps. Teaching is a life purpose. Don't you love the irony. The point of the pointing is to get people interested in what the common mind distracts them from: the existential question. Most people would likely reject "there is only what you are", and most of those who wouldn't reject it have various misconceptions about it, some subtle, some, not-so-much. What would be the point of pointing to people that are not actually here? If one had realised this to be the case, one wouldn't teach or point. Makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2024 13:32:50 GMT -5
The goal in the end is for the current avatar, while in incarnation, to merge with the Oversoul, to ~become~ the Oversoul. That's Michaels in a nutshell. I agree with Michaels that trying to merge with Brahman is an error caused by ignorance, be it innocence or foolishness, but I disagree with his argumentation. Isn't it fascinating how two men watch and hear the exact same video and hear and interpret completely different perspectives. inavalan identified the time of the reference. I'd say Michaels disagrees more with the means people of India try to unite with Brahman, more than the principle. It doesn't help to try to disregard the body, and life in general. There is a process. Michaels describes the process. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2024 13:46:41 GMT -5
The point of the pointing is to get people interested in what the common mind distracts them from: the existential question. Most people would likely reject "there is only what you are", and most of those who wouldn't reject it have various misconceptions about it, some subtle, some, not-so-much. What would be the point of pointing to people that are not actually here? If one had realised this to be the case, one wouldn't teach or point. Makes no sense. I tried to go into this with ZD numerous times over the years. I have no problem with no SVP. I understand no SVP (the software, the psychology). But we are left with a body, the hardware. The body is the individuality. I think ZD and I agree on that. Then, it all goes to popo. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 26, 2024 14:23:11 GMT -5
The point of the pointing is to get people interested in what the common mind distracts them from: the existential question. Most people would likely reject "there is only what you are", and most of those who wouldn't reject it have various misconceptions about it, some subtle, some, not-so-much. What would be the point of pointing to people that are not actually here? If one had realised this to be the case, one wouldn't teach or point. Makes no sense.  It isn't "pointing to people that are not actually here". You work on yourself, at an inner level, with others. You see the results in the physical world that you create and perceive, learn and adjust. |
|
.. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. 
It isn't "pointing to people that are not actually here". You work on yourself, at an inner level, with others. You see the results in the physical world that you create and perceive, learn and adjust.