Correction: true: "there is no individuality as a center of consciousness". Sorry.
But false statement: "There is no individuality", or "There are no individuals". Correct statement: "There are dream-like entities that can be considered conventional individuals". Otherwise, there would be no Dr. Pete to make posts. You (Dr. Pete) are a dream-individual although (true) there is no locatable center as that entity. I never said there was. These are different issues!. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <yifuxero@...> wrote: > > Nobody is saying there is no individuality "as a private center of > consciousness". What people (many people including Buddhists) are saying that > "individuals as dream entities are real" (i.e. they are real dream entities > having the property of individuality). It appears that all non-dualists are > agreed on your statement as to the "center of consciousness". But isn't this > rather obvious? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > You keep on making this conceptual argument which does make sense from a > > waking state context. But if you have clear CC experiences it becomes quite > > clear there is no individuality as a private center of consciousness. This > > is only a neo-advaita trap when people try to argue there is no self in > > waking state. Of course there is a self in waking state. There just isn't > > one in CC. So what happens to this relative self in CC? The answer is > > nothing. It becomes clear that the sense of relative self was a delusion. > > This is why the rope and snake metaphor is so powerful. You could argue > > that the snake exists as a concept or belief. But this would be like saying > > from waking state that your dream of a tiger was real. Only in the dream is > > the tiger real. Once you shift into waking state, the tiger is no longer > > real in this new context. The same thing happens to the sense of > > individuality in CC. It's not there. There's only consciousness which has > > no relative > > measure. > > > > Non-localization is not a conceptual argument that can be understood in > > waking state. It sounds absurd, of course. Imagine trying to tell your > > dream ego that there is no tiger as it experiences the tiger chasing it! > > But it is a conceptual tool that helps you in CC. > > > > By the way, I completely agree with you that neo-advaita is nonsense, but > > not for the same reasons you argue. Neo-advaita is nonsense because it > > offers no tools to facilitate realization and it takes concepts that make > > plenty of sense in Realization, but make no sense in waking state. > > > > > > --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > From: yifuxero <yifuxero@> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Enlightenment Personal? > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 11:10 PM > > > What you're saying is a "pov" > > > differing from the pov's of others. In Waite's version, > > > entities such as me, I, you, (any so-called conventional > > > individuals); are indeed "real" although non-substantial and > > > dream-like. > > > Nowhere (almost nowhere) in Buddhism is there any Scripture > > > or Authority saying such entities are non-existent. They are > > > simply non-substantial, possibly coincident with Shankara's > > > superposition or superimposition principle. The veneer of > > > individuality is "superimposed" on existence through > > > dream-like apparent conventionality. > > > Thus, consistent with Buddhism as a whole and what Waite's > > > saying, individuality: (I, me, Thou, them, etc); are "real" > > > dream-entities in the sense of existence; but insubstantial > > > in relation to Being, the Self. > > > > > > Otherwise, there would be no dream-entity Dr. Pete making > > > the posts!! > > > Bringing in the false notion of non-existence (the null > > > set); only results in a consistent Neo-Advaitic trap. I've > > > seen that before. > > > ... > > > Take the Ribhu Gita. The horns on a hare metaphor is > > > actually incorrect, (imo). There is no such thing, even as a > > > dream-entity. > > > The rope/snake example would however be appropriate, since > > > the snake is delusional but the rope ACTUALLY exists. > > > Or, take a mirage seen in the desert. The heat trap > > > making the mirage is a real phenomenon, though not what it > > > appears. In a sense, the mirage is non-substantial though it > > > can be explained scientifically. > > > ... > > > otoh, the horns on a hare metaphor doesn't hold, since > > > there is no such thing. It's in the null-set, not a delusion > > > like a mirage. > > > ... > > > Again, the Dr. Pete character as a dream entity does indeed > > > exist, though is non-substantial; otherwise, you wouldn't > > > have said you live near some town in Florida. (what town was > > > that, Boca Raton)?. > > > ... > > > So even your mention of non-locality doesn't hold water wrt > > > the dream entity Dr. Pete. He/you, does indeed live > > > near Boca Raton as you said "yourself". > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > > > Peter <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Character and self are not them same. Character refers > > > to tendencies. Self refers to a psychological/mental > > > identity. In enlightenment there is no psychological/mental > > > entity that terms such as "me" and "I" refer to. There is no > > > private self. When the mind tries to find it, nothing, quite > > > literally, is (not) there. > > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 3/7/11, yifuxero <yifuxero@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: yifuxero <yifuxero@> > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Is Enlightenment > > > Personal? > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 9:46 PM > > > > > Interesting answer by Dennis Waite, > > > > > especially the last 2 sentences including "The > > > dream > > > > > character continues being a dream character". > > > > > > > > > > If what Dennis says is a. "the truth", > > > essentialy; with no > > > > > self-contradictions, > > > > > > > > > > b. then one could (imo) insert the word > > > "individuality" > > > > > here and there, placing it into Waite's context > > > such that > > > > > the statement: > > > > > "there's no individuality in E." wouldn't quite > > > match what > > > > > Dennis is saying. Individuality as a dream entity > > > would > > > > > simply continue after E. along the lines of > > > chopping wood > > > > > and carrying water. > > > > > > > > > > A further question would be how much importance > > > people give > > > > > to their/any dream characters. Ramana said "you > > > give too > > > > > much importance to the body" (easy for him to > > > say). > > > > > ... > > > > > at: > > > > > http://advaita-academy.org/Pages/Q_A_Details.aspx?cid=68&qid=111 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > > > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > Or go to: > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Or go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > > > > > > >
