[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
--Below - pure baloney, sounds like "Maharishi-talk", not even worth commenting on; count me out of this discussion from now on. I have some serious TV watching to do.: to quote, utter gobbledegook:... "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew up as a species. Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this universe. All else is illusion. Therefore, life is bliss. All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yagyax" wrote: > > > > ---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he > used > > the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, > as > > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? > >> > > That's right, attack the man, not the argument, there's a good Neocon. > > > > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one > > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life > is > > Bliss".>> > > Than you have not understood this modern and perfect argument below > (written by me): > > > "Existence exists, therefore interaction of the full potential of > existence - its opposite potentials of point and infinity - occurs. > Therefore activity occurs, therefore dynamism flourishes and > propogates. You are that existence and its inherent dynamism. > Thereforeyou are at home in that. Being at home, therefore you are > happy in this universe, which is your cherished home where you grew > up as a species. > Therefore life is bliss, because you are always at home in this > universe. All else is illusion. > Therefore, life is bliss. > All else is self-illusion, ie.untrue." > > > > > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is > > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > > holes, like cheese.. > > And you have zero logic or rationale or ANY argument whatsoever > behind anything you say, except to attack me. Pathetic little man you > are. > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > > > conclusion "Life > > > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > > > alone? >> > > > > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from > the > > > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is > a > > > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians > > believe.>> > > > > > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > > > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child > saying > > > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > > > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of > > > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > > > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > > > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > > > > > They did. > > > > > > > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > &
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Thanks, Bronte!...precisely what I said. Those that say Life is Bliss have arrived at that conclusion through direct experience. One would have difficulty arriving at that conclusion through logic alone. Invariably, such "logical" arguments tend to be on the same level of flawed discourse as some well known arguments in favor of the existence of "God" going back to Blaise Pascal and in the 20-th century, C.S. Lewis. A quick google search will turn up serious flaws in such arguments. The logic behind "Life is Bliss" turns out to be likewise deficient. If this boils down to a popularity contest, "life is a bummer, then you die" would win by a long shot. The people maintaining that position are no more or less deficient in logic than the "Life is Bliss" group. In the end, direct experience blows the logic away. PS: google "logical arguments for the existence of God". In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yagyax wrote: > > Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used > the phrase "Being-In-Itself" ) on the basis of his own experience, as > does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? > But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one > statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is > Bliss". > There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is > that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can > conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of > holes, like cheese.. > > > Bronte writes: > > Okay, I'm adding my two cents to this discussion. MMY was right: Life is Bliss, in is essential nature at least. Because what is life except an expression of the Infinite, which is a field of pure bliss (the one thing everyone in this forum agrees on, I expect)? If modern philosophers aren't saying the same, it's no doubt because they haven't experienced the transcendental side of their nature and therefore don't know the Bliss that is at the core of everything. > > > > - > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Jim Flanegin's Comment on Free Will
-Right, those are the principles of karma and Dharma. What the term "unfathomable" refers to is not general principles, which meditators seem to intuit (Cf. statements of Charlie Lutes to that effect) after some degree of experience, but the ACTUAL chain of causations pointing to certain events, whether involving the principles of karma, Dharma, or reincarnation. Thus, even great Sages fall short of describing such vast, unfathomable chains of cause and effect; since one would have to have virtually infinite knowledge of relative events to come to any definitive conclusions on karma. No Sage has given a demonstration as to such relative knowledge. True, Absolute knowledge, or "Gnosis", but as to the actual workings of karmic events, no. We have this on Krishna's word. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mathabrahman wrote: > > Everything's perfect, including the desire to make things better. > Here, we could run into a genuine paradox; but we're dealing with > karma and Dharma, areas which are innately unfathomable. > Therefore, even Sages may fall short of expertise on the topic of > what's perfect and what's not in relative existence. > > Bronte writes: > > Hi, Mathabrahman. I'd like to discuss karma and dharma with you sometime. In my opinion, the "unfathomability" of these things is just more Hindu gobbledygook. When the mind is freed from the clutter of Eastern assumptions, it is easy to understand both karma and dharma quite clearly. > > Karma is caused and held in place by an attitude of the mind. When the attitude holding circumstances in place gets changed, things start to shift in outer reality, and "karma" suddenly changes. Mind is supreme, not karma. Mind is the basic stuff of the universe -- it precedes events. The Indians would have us believe the opposite: that outer events have greater power than individual mind. The purpose of that dogma is just more disempowerment, more surrender of the hopelessness of relative life to the "beneficent" gods masquerading as Oneness. Change the attitude, and you change the karma -- both in the sense of karma as action and karma as reaction. The world reacts to us differently when we vibrate to a different thought. Mind has authority over karma. > > Dharma is also no biggie. Dharma is the path of action a person needs to tread, and the map for that is quietly written in each human heart. Dharma is only hard to discern when an individual is looking to outer authority for her direction. When the eye turns inward, to the knowingness within, a person gets all the guidance they need. Intuition develops, a sense of what's right and true in particular situations. With greater interior attention, clearer direction develops. Dharma becomes a shining path into one's future. > > > > - > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Challenge -- say something true
---Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that life is "Bliss" (he used the phrase "Being-In-Itself") on the basis of his own experience, as does (who's the person you're speaking on behalf of, Byron Katie?)? But I keep up on modern philosophical topics, and haven't seen one statement from academic circles pointing to the notion that "Life is Bliss". There's no more logical support for that conclusion than there is that the moon is made of green cheese. You keep on saying one can conclude that from logic, but your chain of premises is full of holes, like cheese.. In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mathatbrahman" > wrote: > > > > ---Offworld, your premises simply don't lead to the > conclusion "Life > > is Bliss". So, you're saying one can conclude this from logic > alone? >> > > Absolutely. > > > Preposterous! There's no more weight to that conclusion from the > > shoddy premises you have presented that the conclusion "Life is a > > bummer, then you die"...which many intelligent logicians believe.>> > > These are inexperienced and illogical "logicians" you speak of. > To say "life is a bummer, and then you die" is like a child saying > "I can't go to bed, there's a boogey man under the bed". > I am being entirely descriptive here. Not sarcastic. The level of > rational perception that comes up with such a thing, is weak, > unfounded, and built on shifting sands. > > > Logic alone will not lead one to your conclusion, otherwise > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have arrived at that. >> > > They did. > > > Night night all. Sleep tight. > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sinhlnx" wrote: > > > > > > > > ---Off_world, your arguments amount to a tautology: >>> > > > > > > Thankyou. > > > (you seem to be under the delusion that a tautology is a bad > thing > > in > > > logic. It is actually the highest goal of logic. You're > > understanding > > > of tautology needs some serious attention and time spent studying > > it. > > > Come back when you have studied it for 3 weeks minimum, full > time.) > > > > > > < > > > because it's Bliss. >> > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > < > > > to "Entirely comfortable"; but that's the problem! >>> > > > > > > No I am not. You are under the delusion that words are pure and > > > perfect. Wrong. > > > Every word or phrase has within it multiple layers of INHERENT > > > meaning. Anyone watching this thread with a scintillating > intellect > > > embedded in their jyotish chart, is baffled by your lack of > ability > > > to see the inherent meaning I gave, which is not contradictory to > > the > > > more succinct meaning I gave. > > > > > > < > > > the definitions to suit your purpose and wind up with a self- > > > evident > > > > truth,>>> > > > > > > You just don't have the experience in logic to see its obvious > > logic. > > > > > > <> > > > > > > Yes. Thanks again. Tautology is the highest, most prized > structure > > of > > > logic. I used to teach this stuff. > > > > > > < > > > from "entirely comfortable". > > > > However, where in the world do you get the premise, "entirely > > > > comfortable", >>> > > > > > > > > > Bliss is entirely comfortable, as those who have experienced it > > know. > > > > > > Total comfort is entirely blissful, as those who can appreciate > it > > to > > > the fullest know. > > > > > > > > > <> > > planets?cuz I sure don't see them on this planet!>> > > > > > > Yes, this planet is in ignorance and self-delusion...as the > masters > > > have stated time and time again. > > > > > > WAKE UP ! ! ! > > > The truth is out thereand it is bliss. > > > > > > OffWorld > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Yagyax's Comment/ Is Ego an "I" or a "Me"?
--Hi Bronte...you ask if the false "I" makes individuals separate. That contributes to it among those ignorant of the Self, since such persons are mainly concerned about the veneer of psychomaterial existence, which is innately separate without consideration of pure Consciousness; in fact "evil" according to Eckart Tolle. Among those in whom the false "I" no longer exists, the (strictly relative) separateness that makes MMY different than SSRS or Ramana different than SBS would for starters rely on the (apparent) separateness of things, people, etc oriented in space-time; but more important; since the universe can be considered as an immense computer (matter); with laws (the programs); all conceived of as pure digital bits of information, what really makes people different is simply their POV. Thus, MMY's POV (which is the mind-orientation of an individual within the universal hologram) differs considerably from Ramana's, and then again from the Dalai Lama's. The POV's (viewpoints) partake of extremely powerful M-fields which are often at odds; at this time in the metaphysical area, chiefly the clash between extremist Islam and the West. And, we haven't even touched the problem of world physical suffering; e.g. 16,000 children die each day due to malnutrition. Either one is concered about such problems, or not. The motto of the Advaitins seems to be "I don't know and I don't care". Imagine a world in which everybody is Enlightened. Nobody would go around saying "There's no Me, or "I"; since the playing field would be even, at ground zero for everybody; and relative minds would go "back" to an apparent type of separateness; only fully unified as Pure Consciousness. If somebody were wearing flashy clothes that deserved commenting upon, that would be quite natural; and nobody would belabor the question of there being "individuals" or not. Of course there are individuals!...but some think not. If individuals didn't exist, there would be no point in having Heaven on Earth. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, Yagyax. Never saw you on the forum before. This was brilliant. However, I'm confused what you meant by this part: > > IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are > still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no > longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those > who wish to continue with some type of relative body. > But since the delusional "I" is only ONE component of what makes up > an individual, the "I" cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the > false "I" does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up > a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not > SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense > or definition. > > I agree that the delusional "I" is only one component of what makes up the individual. Another component is the enlightened "I," which from my perspective includes not just "I" the universal but "I" the purified individual ego. I'm not sure that's what you were saying though. If it is, we're in complete agreement. > > Were you, instead, meaning to say that the false "I" is the thing that makes us separate from other persons? If that is the case, I disagree. A purified individual ego still distinguishes between itself and others -- moreover, it acts dynamically, rather than passively observing its own actions. It isn't "false I" to step dynamically into one's individual expression, especially when the "universal I" is awake within. > > I was thinking of another analogy: the figures in a painting. All a painting is, on one level, is a painted canvas. There is no diversity other than canvas and paint (kinda like consciousness and energy). That is the "oneness" level of the painting. But it would be false to say the figures in the painting don't exist. It would not be wrong for a lion in the painting to say "I am an individual lion" at the same time as it says "I am a painting." Both are true. What isn't true is for the lion to say "I am only a painting. I was never really a lion." > > > > yagyax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically > correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively > exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how > one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as > discussed in a previous str
[FairfieldLife] Re: Regarding Judy's Comment/ Is Ego an "I" or a "Me"?
--Nope Billy - Bronte is more correct - although Auth is technically correct to a certain extent.. The bottom line, beyond the lively exchange of ideas, amounts to a thorough, deepseated POV about how one views the world and the ultimate goal of human evolution: (as discussed in a previous string), a. After E., one can still choose to exist as an individual, b. apparently, one can allow the compoments of one's existence to completely dissolve and disspate, leaving no individual, or c. choose not to choose. However, a. has a variation which may cloud the concept of "individuality". A Buddha may exist relatively speaking, but the components of individuality may be spread throughout the universe in countless Transformation bodies. We can take Ramana as an example. He viewed the body as simply excess baggage to be gotten rid of (to paraphrase his own words!). Contrast this with the goals of certain Buddhas who may continue to exist in some form to assist the evolution of others. There's a contrasted POV here!. Thus, it's more than semantics; but the two sides amount to (perhaps) irreconciable differences. IMO, if certain Gurus refuse to recognize the fact that they are still individuals, so be it. After dying, perhaps they will no longer exist as individuals, really; leaving the universe for those who wish to continue with some type of relative body. But since the delusional "I" is only ONE component of what makes up an individual, the "I" cannot be said to vanish. Obviously, the false "I" does vanish but this is only one component of what makes up a person, which distinguishes one person from another: MMY is not SSRS, etc. That's what makes up an individual, in the broadest sense or definition. In this broad context, rocks can be "individuals" since each of them differs from the others. Thus, semantics enters into the picture, true.. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bronte Baxter > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I replied to this once. Somehow it never posted, so here goes > > again: > > > > > > From Judy, quoting Bronte: > > > To claim that the ego is only a Me is to perceive only its > > limited > expression. Such limited expression certainly needs > > dissolving for > cosmic bliss to occur. But the Me only needs to > > dissolve into the > I. It was never intended by the Infinite that >the > > I should dissolve > into non-existence. > > > > > > Judy wrote: > > > I really think this all boils down to a matter of semantics. I've > > never understood that in enlightenment the "I" dissolves into > > nonexistence; rather, what dissolves into nonsexistence (because it > > was an illusion to start with) is *identification* > > > with the "I." The "I" is still there, doing its thing, not in any > > way inhibited by the lack of identification with it. > > > > > > Bronte writes: > > > It's not just semantics. It's a fundamentally opposite way of > > viewing life and the universe. People of my mindset don't just claim > > that the ego never dissolves in true enlightenment. We also advocate > > that IDENTIFICATION WITH the ego -- in the subjective sense of "I, > > the doer" (not in the object sense of "Me, the happened to") SHOULD > > never dissolve. We argue that having such dissolution as one's goal > > or allowing it to happen is the hugest mistake a human being can > > make. > > > > > > You say that the ego doesn't dissolve in enlightenment -- that > > identification with the ego is what dissolves. I don't think > > identification with the small self has to ever dissolve or should. > > What the goal should be is to identifify with both one's cosmic > > unlimited universal nature while AT THE SAME TIME identifying with > > oneself as an individual consciousness. Both identities must be > > simultaneous for true realization to occur. > > > > > > When a person stops identifying with their individual "I," they > > lose their authorship, their empowerment, their freedom as original, > > creative expressions of God. The difference between your description > > of enlightenment and mine is huge: it's the difference between > > someone floating in the water and someone swimming. > > > > Well, that's certainly a loaded analogy! > > > > > We're not here to float in the water, to let life happen to us. > > To observe and witness ourselves and life, to be "done to." We're > > here to co-create with God, realizing our oneness with That, our > > infinite power and joy as God's dynamic expressions. > > > > I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye > > on this; but again, my understanding is that if > > you identify with the Self rather than the self, > > you are identifying with the ultimate creative > > principle. Your self is then experienced to
