|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 12:20:07 GMT -5
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. And I suppose the quality of life for yourself and those that you come into contact with, solely depends upon which of these perspectives gets fed. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:29:15 GMT -5
"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. And I suppose the quality of life for yourself and those that you come into contact with, solely depends upon which of these perspectives gets fed. Despite having two mouths, duck/bunnies don't need food to survive.   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:34:11 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. "heh heh .. good one .. heh heh"   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:47:30 GMT -5
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. "popo" (pronounced "poe-poe") was the name I gave to the orphaned squirrel. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 12:51:04 GMT -5
And I suppose the quality of life for yourself and those that you come into contact with, solely depends upon which of these perspectives gets fed. Despite having two mouths, duck/bunnies don't need food to survive. Comical point, but by fed I meant what attention you give each perspective. Pilgrim is all about attention, attention, attention and then fills his head and this forum with tales of what people he'll never meet are doing. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to be careful with your input. As in, be careful what you feed yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2024 12:56:23 GMT -5
Despite having two mouths, duck/bunnies don't need food to survive. Comical point, but by fed I meant what attention you give each perspective. Pilgrim is all about attention, attention, attention and then fills his head and this forum with tales of what people he'll never meet are doing. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to be careful with your input. As in, be careful what you feed yourself. Well, Grace makes her appearance whenever she happens to. Relative schemes of value are what they are, which isn't to say that they're insignificant or unimportant. It's all contextual. All a matter of perspective. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", because the "sinner" is perfect, just as they are.  |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 27, 2024 15:39:19 GMT -5
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. If you reset this 'very annoying', to something a little more grown up then you'd probably do yourself a huge favour. The return of the 'self-circuits' is usually only for the benefit of other people anyway. It's like the human organism is getting itself ready to engage with people in a kind and considerate way. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2024 16:08:39 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. 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. That's the whole point. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Aug 28, 2024 2:03:31 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. They can't live in any other way. They don't have any other choice but to witness life, whether they realize it or not. If they realize, then the unfolding events might differ, but they can't escape witnessing life. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 5:11:03 GMT -5
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. They can't live in any other way. They don't have any other choice but to witness life, whether they realize it or not. If they realize, then the unfolding events might differ, but they can't escape witnessing life. Then we are not talking about the same thing. I suppose neither are sharon and I are talking about the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 5:13:19 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. Whenever some online claims to know what 'everybody' is doing, I just laugh now. Tell me then, what for you is the meaning of sleep? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 5:23:52 GMT -5
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. I was out yesterday. Then this stupid virus alert keeps popping up here while I'm on STs, nowhere else. Basically, Michaels view and the ND view are like QM and Relativity, they can't be understood in terms of each other. Michaels is saying there IS a "Cosmic" evolutionary endpoint, a kind of Omega endpoint. For the ND expressed here, there isn't. So, there is an impasse. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 5:52:07 GMT -5
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? In the parable of the sower, the different types of soil are different types of people. Elsewhere, Broad is the way that leads to destruction, which most travel, narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Whenever I say most people, I never mean people here on STs, I mean most people. I look at 'how I was', and I see most people. Are most people awake or asleep? I'm not filling my head with what I think other people are doing. It's not possible to wake up another person. I can't do anything about how other people take what I post. It is never my intention to hurt other people. But I have the freedom to say here what I can't say elsewhere. Do you remember silver? She was a nice sweet kind lady. But a lot of people maliciously attacked her, here, the main posters, continually. She took it all and kept posting, years, but eventually just left. Do you remember a few years ago ZD said he could no longer recommend STs forum to friends or new people he met? If I have been anything like that, please let me know. As far as I know I do not attack people, I just post my POV, and let the chips fall where they may. Are different views posted here? Yes. Would you like inavalan to leave? Would you like tenka to leave? Would you like lolly to leave? Would you like Gopal to leave? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 28, 2024 6:06:01 GMT -5
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. If you reset this 'very annoying', to something a little more grown up then you'd probably do yourself a huge favour. The return of the 'self-circuits' is usually only for the benefit of other people anyway. It's like the human organism is getting itself ready to engage with people in a kind and considerate way. My 'self-circuits' pop up just about every minute of every day. I usually disappear into my self-circuits. Sometimes I catch myself sooner, sometimes later. ........ I read an account just yesterday, it just came to mind: "One night years ago I came upon my boyfriend passionately embracing another woman. We were in the house of a friend who had a priceless collection of pottery. I was furious and looking for something to throw. Everything I picked up had to be put back down because it was worth at least ten thousand dollars. I was completely enraged and couldn't find an outlet! There were no exits from experiencing my own energy. The absurdity of the situation totally cut through my rage. I went outside and looked at the sky and laughed until I cried". Pema Chodron, from The Places That Scare You |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2024 7:46:12 GMT -5
"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. I was out yesterday. Then this stupid virus alert keeps popping up here while I'm on STs, nowhere else. Basically, Michaels view and the ND view are like QM and Relativity, they can't be understood in terms of each other. Michaels is saying there IS a "Cosmic" evolutionary endpoint, a kind of Omega endpoint. For the ND expressed here, there isn't. So, there is an impasse. My understanding of the non-dual pointers is that they're not incompatible with the notion of evolution or progression generally. The question of whether such a process has an end is philosophical. |
|
