|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 26, 2024 17:02:51 GMT -5
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. Yes, we agree on that. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 26, 2024 17:10:37 GMT -5
"I don't understand non-dual awareness; I only experience it." ~ Kim Michaels.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 26, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
"I don't understand non-dual awareness; I only experience it." ~ Kim Michaels. That seems a correct assessment: he (as everybody) experiences non-dual awareness (he is the only one aware in his subjective physical-reality, as everybody else is, at all levels of evolvement, in their own subjective physical-realities), and (obviously) he doesn't understand it (yet). Knowing that you don't know is innocence: the first level of ignorance. Not-knowing that you don't know is the next level of ignorance: foolishness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2024 9:20:55 GMT -5
I'll come back to this, shortly, adding to no-self and no-volition (the bottom edit). 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 stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2024 10:25:57 GMT -5
The first two paragraphs are a repeat of the post above, for continuity.
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.
Let's go back to no-self, or no-person. Gopal gets that there is one thing we can do, witness. The natural state of the individual, is to witness. In Dzogchen it's actually called the Natural State, Dzogchen means the natural state, or the Great Perfection. Dzogchen is called the practice of no-practice. There isn't anything you practice, you just dwell in the Natural State. When ~you~ ~find~ the natural state, it's a kind of seduction, you want only to live-there. But there's a problem, the self-circuits still exist, and still continually pop up, very annoying. Here is where (conceptual) ND and sdp depart. ND 'says' it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that the self-circuits keep popping up, there is nothing to be done anyway. But ~you~ can witness, witnessing can occur. You just see what is, impartially. IOW, the self-circuits which continually pop up, are witnessed. lolly understands this well, zazeniac understands it. Now, what occurs is that when you actually witness a self-circuit operating, neuroplasticity occurs, the information gets stored in a different way. You don't forget what's occurred, you have in a certain sense, smoothed over the ruts, and your attention doesn't get trapped in the old self-circuits. You have actually changed the circuitry of your brain, made new pathways.
There is a learning curve here. A lot of what we call meditation, is merely one self-circuit observing another self-circuit. This doesn't change the circuitry in any way whatsoever, it actually strengthens the circuits, "what fires together wires together". The Natural State exist prior-to and apart-from any operation of the neural circuits. That, is the place, ~you~ have to get-to. That is true meditation, true practice, which is the practice of no-practice, it's witnessing. It stands outside the circuitry.
The default-mode for most people is the self-circuits operating. This is knee-jerk garbage in garbage out automaticity. This is the way things are going to be, until the self-circuits operating, are witnessed. For most people, they are just living in the world, they are a self just living in the world. They don't have a clue about non-volition, they don't know that their actions, thoughts and feelings are merely self-circuits reacting, automatically. In my language, your sense of identity can shift from the operation of the self-circuits, to witnessing. I didn't formulate or create this whole process, all this, I was taught, and came to understand. Once you understand something, you just operate from understanding, no force in the universe can circumvent your understanding. But the self-circuits are going to continue to pop up, until they don't. That's called the first liberation.
The Natural State isn't whatever occurs, just occurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 27, 2024 10:29:29 GMT -5
The first two paragraphs are a repeat of the post above, for continuity. 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. Let's go back to no-self, or no-person. Gopal gets that there is one thing we can do, witness. The natural state of the individual, is to witness. In Dzogchen it's actually called the Natural State, Dzogchen means the natural state, or the Great Perfection. Dzogchen is called the practice of no-practice. There isn't anything you practice, you just dwell in the Natural State. When ~you~ ~find~ the natural state, it's a kind of seduction, you want only to live-there. But there's a problem, the self-circuits still exist, and still continually pop up, very annoying. Here is where (conceptual) ND and sdp depart. ND 'says' it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that the self-circuits keep popping up, there is nothing to be done anyway. But ~you~ can witness, witnessing can occur. You just see what is, impartially. IOW, the self-circuits which continually pop up, are witnessed. lolly understands this well, zazeniac understands it. Now, what occurs is that when you actually witness a self-circuit operating, neuroplasticity occurs, the information gets stored in a different way. You don't forget what's occurred, you have in a certain sense, smoothed over the ruts, and your attention doesn't get trapped in the old self-circuits. You have actually changed the circuitry of your brain, made new pathways. There is a learning curve here. A lot of what we call meditation, is merely one self-circuit observing another self-circuit. This doesn't change the circuitry in any way whatsoever, it actually strengthens the circuits, "what fires together wires together". The Natural State exist prior-to and apart-from any operation of the neural circuits. That, is the place, ~you~ have to get-to. That is true meditation, true practice, which is the practice of no-practice. The default-mode for most people is the self-circuits operating. This is knee-jerk garbage in garbage out automaticity. This is the way things are going to be, until the self-circuits operating, are witnessed. For most people, they are just living in the world, they are a self just living in the world. They don't have a clue about non-volition. In my language, your sense of identity can shift from the operation of the self-circuits, to witnessing. I didn't formulate or create this whole process, all this, I was taught, and came to understand. Once you understand something, you just operate from understanding, no force in the universe can circumvent your understanding. But the self-circuits are going to continue to pop up, until they don't. That's called the first liberation. We are inherently witnesses; it’s in our nature. We can’t cease our act of witnessing—it’s an automatic process. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2024 10:36:32 GMT -5
The first two paragraphs are a repeat of the post above, for continuity. 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. Let's go back to no-self, or no-person. Gopal gets that there is one thing we can do, witness. The natural state of the individual, is to witness. In Dzogchen it's actually called the Natural State, Dzogchen means the natural state, or the Great Perfection. Dzogchen is called the practice of no-practice. There isn't anything you practice, you just dwell in the Natural State. When ~you~ ~find~ the natural state, it's a kind of seduction, you want only to live-there. But there's a problem, the self-circuits still exist, and still continually pop up, very annoying. Here is where (conceptual) ND and sdp depart. ND 'says' it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that the self-circuits keep popping up, there is nothing to be done anyway. But ~you~ can witness, witnessing can occur. You just see what is, impartially. IOW, the self-circuits which continually pop up, are witnessed. lolly understands this well, zazeniac understands it. Now, what occurs is that when you actually witness a self-circuit operating, neuroplasticity occurs, the information gets stored in a different way. You don't forget what's occurred, you have in a certain sense, smoothed over the ruts, and your attention doesn't get trapped in the old self-circuits. You have actually changed the circuitry of your brain, made new pathways. There is a learning curve here. A lot of what we call meditation, is merely one self-circuit observing another self-circuit. This doesn't change the circuitry in any way whatsoever, it actually strengthens the circuits, "what fires together wires together". The Natural State exist prior-to and apart-from any operation of the neural circuits. That, is the place, ~you~ have to get-to. That is true meditation, true practice, which is the practice of no-practice. The default-mode for most people is the self-circuits operating. This is knee-jerk garbage in garbage out automaticity. This is the way things are going to be, until the self-circuits operating, are witnessed. For most people, they are just living in the world, they are a self just living in the world. They don't have a clue about non-volition. In my language, your sense of identity can shift from the operation of the self-circuits, to witnessing. I didn't formulate or create this whole process, all this, I was taught, and came to understand. Once you understand something, you just operate from understanding, no force in the universe can circumvent your understanding. But the self-circuits are going to continue to pop up, until they don't. That's called the first liberation. We are inherently witnesses; it’s in our nature. We can’t cease our act of witnessing—it’s an automatic process. Does everybody operate in this manner, witnessing? No, they don't. Not 1% of the population operates from witnessing, that's the whole point. Most people operate from thinking, feeling, sensations, actions. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 11:44:19 GMT -5
The first two paragraphs are a repeat of the post above, for continuity. 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. Let's go back to no-self, or no-person. Gopal gets that there is one thing we can do, witness. The natural state of the individual, is to witness. In Dzogchen it's actually called the Natural State, Dzogchen means the natural state, or the Great Perfection. Dzogchen is called the practice of no-practice. There isn't anything you practice, you just dwell in the Natural State. When ~you~ ~find~ the natural state, it's a kind of seduction, you want only to live-there. But there's a problem, the self-circuits still exist, and still continually pop up, very annoying. Here is where (conceptual) ND and sdp depart. ND 'says' it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that the self-circuits keep popping up, there is nothing to be done anyway. But ~you~ can witness, witnessing can occur. You just see what is, impartially. IOW, the self-circuits which continually pop up, are witnessed. lolly understands this well, zazeniac understands it. Now, what occurs is that when you actually witness a self-circuit operating, neuroplasticity occurs, the information gets stored in a different way. You don't forget what's occurred, you have in a certain sense, smoothed over the ruts, and your attention doesn't get trapped in the old self-circuits. You have actually changed the circuitry of your brain, made new pathways. There is a learning curve here. A lot of what we call meditation, is merely one self-circuit observing another self-circuit. This doesn't change the circuitry in any way whatsoever, it actually strengthens the circuits, "what fires together wires together". The Natural State exist prior-to and apart-from any operation of the neural circuits. That, is the place, ~you~ have to get-to. That is true meditation, true practice, which is the practice of no-practice. The default-mode for most people is the self-circuits operating. This is knee-jerk garbage in garbage out automaticity. This is the way things are going to be, until the self-circuits operating, are witnessed. For most people, they are just living in the world, they are a self just living in the world. They don't have a clue about non-volition. In my language, your sense of identity can shift from the operation of the self-circuits, to witnessing. I didn't formulate or create this whole process, all this, I was taught, and came to understand. Once you understand something, you just operate from understanding, no force in the universe can circumvent your understanding. But the self-circuits are going to continue to pop up, until they don't. That's called the first liberation. This last paragraph is just ranting in all honesty. And if this is what you mean about the self circuits returning then yes, it needs cleaning up. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 11:47:46 GMT -5
We are inherently witnesses; it’s in our nature. We can’t cease our act of witnessing—it’s an automatic process. Does everybody operate in this manner, witnessing? No, they don't. Not 1% of the population operates from witnessing, that's the whole point. Most people operate from thinking, feeling, sensations, actions. Whenever some online claims to know what 'everybody' is doing, I just laugh now. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 27, 2024 11:51:03 GMT -5
We are inherently witnesses; it’s in our nature. We can’t cease our act of witnessing—it’s an automatic process. Does everybody operate in this manner, witnessing? No, they don't. Not 1% of the population operates from witnessing, that's the whole point. Most people operate from thinking, feeling, sensations, actions. That's not what I am saying. You have mistaken me. I am saying we can't perform witnessing act. Because our nature is to witnessing! It's our nature to witness it. We are not performing that act. It's not possible to stop witnessing act. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2024 11:56:31 GMT -5
Does everybody operate in this manner, witnessing? No, they don't. Not 1% of the population operates from witnessing, that's the whole point. Most people operate from thinking, feeling, sensations, actions. That's not what I am saying. You have mistaken me. I am saying we can't perform witnessing act. Because our nature is to witnessing! It's our nature to witness it. We are not performing that act. It's not possible to stop witnessing act. I agree. But the true nature of most people is covered over, hidden, absent. So most people do not live through their true nature. We'll just have to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:09:24 GMT -5
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: "Real", "objective world", this entire discussion is related to the dream/dreamer metaphor and a specific translation of non-English terms into English that inavalan explained (not to endorse his interpretation, but his explanation was competent). Some people resonate with the dream/dreamer metaphor, others take a different approach that is best illustrated by various Zen stories: the monk who swept a pebble, "THIS! is IT!", and "enter Zen, from there". These approaches to the existential question may seem in-opposite, similar to the way some Christian interpretations of Buddhism as "atheistic" create such an imagined opposition. But, all roads lead to Rome. The only thing I will write about a potential resolution to this false conflict is to say that "reality", the "objective world" or "the dream", are simply not what most people expressing common mind think it is. There is no wrong way to approach the existential question. To hold otherwise would be tantamount to saying that there some wrong way to be. But, there isn't. What the Christians say about everyone being a sinner is true, but it is also true that You, are Perfect, exactly as You Are, right here and Now. So, there is no wrong way to seek. It is possible, however, to wander off into the weeds. Trying to use mental maps to rationalize one's way to a deeper existential understanding using intellect is one big 'ole autumn country corn maze. ZD wrote in Concrete about a dream he had of following train tracks that eventually tapered off and disappeared into a wild field. Don't bother with the maze. Find the wild field. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 12:16:51 GMT -5
That's not what I am saying. You have mistaken me. I am saying we can't perform witnessing act. Because our nature is to witnessing! It's our nature to witness it. We are not performing that act. It's not possible to stop witnessing act. I agree. But the true nature of most people is covered over, hidden, absent. So most people do not live through their true nature. We'll just have to disagree. Do you think you're being compassionate by filling your head with what you think other people are doing? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:17:34 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. What questions are you referring to, specifically? I have none about the ideas of "oversoul", reincarnation, illusion, Brahaman or what Mr. Video Schmuck had to say about pretty much anything. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:19:53 GMT -5
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.
No, the term "Brahman", is not so limited. |
|
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. 
