[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > Mtoo many thoughts! Well, there now is a lot of spiritual satsang-ing in Fairfield with lots of small groups doing spiritual practice. Well, yes is also a lot of thoughts. But actually, quite a lot of spiritual experience that propels it. & also people who are quite able to talk about their spiritual experiences, after two, three or four decades of spiritual practice here. Is a lot of what the town is about now. Things get e-mailed around too, so I thought to share that comment excerpt with you out-of-towners on FFL to see. With Best Regards, -Doug in FF > > > "We're going to talk about parallel reality. When > > I've talked to you > > in the past about dimensions, we've said here's one > > dimension and > > here's another dimension, and they're living side by > > side with one > > another. But there's also a fabric of consciousness > > that bleeds back > > and forth from one dimension to the other. They're > > not just standing > > there like soldiers unrelated to each other. There's > > a gate or fabric > > of consciousness that's flowing into one, flowing > > back to the other, > > flowing here and there. > > On a practical level, the point at which something > > splits off, a > > choice point at which one dimension goes this way > > and one dimension > > goes that way, where we are in the world right now > > we're coming to a > > major choice point. > > > > with possibility going this way and one possibility > > going that way > > and one possibility going another way, you really > > get the feeling of > > how you can have a fountainhead and things can > > sprout out of that and > > each possible parallel reality has an > > interrelationship with the > > other ones and they're in a flow together. > > > > When you have choice points that are very close like > > this, there's > > such a small gap between these three people, > > essentially what's > > happening is that the dimensions are closing in on > > one another. > > They're collapsing. Whereas before perhaps our > > experience was that > > the dimensions were very discrete, so you had a big > > gap. Now the gap > > is closing and it's a very small gap. That's why > > there's a feeling > > that the depth of difference between these three > > possibilities > > actually isn't that big. > > > > A dimension is kind of like a membrane. That's why > > when we work with > > the chakras, they're such a good example of what a > > dimension feels > > like because you can feel these subtle membranes in > > the chakras > > moving back and forth. A dimension is like that. It > > has a certain > > edge to it, a circumference, and that circumference > > is very fine. You > > can move from one edge of that circumference to the > > next edge and a > > whole other possible reality opens up. > > > > Normally, we are protected from experiencing a > > parallel reality in > > any clear way because we're locked into a framework > > of our dimension. > > We can only experience what is right here. We don't > > have the capacity > > to see outside that bubble. We're kind of locked > > away in that bubble. > > There are a lot of good reasons for that. For one > > thing, it keeps you > > focused. It keeps you connected to what's going on > > so you don't bleed > > out into some other possibility. But as time and > > consciousness are > > moving in the way that they are right now, the > > possibility of > > perceiving parallel connectivity is much more > > pronounced, so you can > > have the capacity to move out into this other level > > of awareness and > > still maintain your own." > > > > om
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded: > > "We're going to talk about parallel reality." Cool. I'm checking in from Sitges, Spain, about as parallel a reality as I've ever experienced. > "When I've talked to you > in the past about dimensions... Don't know who is speaking, but this is a shaky start IMO. "Talking to" is not the same thing as "talking with." > "...we've... We? I thought that he was the one doing the talking. > "...said here's one dimension and > here's another dimension, and they're living side by side with one > another. But there's also a fabric of consciousness that bleeds back > and forth from one dimension to the other. They're not just standing > there like soldiers unrelated to each other. There's a gate or > fabric of consciousness that's flowing into one, flowing back to > the other, flowing here and there. In case no one else noticed it, I should point out that the two possibilities that whoever this is mentions are not self- contradictory. They could -- and in my opinion, do -- coexist peacefully. The "separate realities" really DO stand there like soldiers unrelated to each other, because they *aren't* related to each other. Yes, there are gates or, as I prefer, portals that lead from one reality to another, but that doesn't necessarily make the realities related one-to-one with each other. Relational Database 101, dude. > On a practical level, the point at which something splits off, a > choice point at which one dimension goes this way and one dimension > goes that way, where we are in the world right now we're coming to > a major choice point. Duh. Every second. > with possibility going this way and one possibility going that way > and one possibility going another way, you really get the feeling of > how you can have a fountainhead and things can sprout out of that > and each possible parallel reality has an interrelationship with > the other ones and they're in a flow together. No problem with flow. Problem with you or any other human claiming that they know where that flow is going. I am of the opinion that that's a little too presumptuous in the face of an incalculable universe. > When you have choice points that are very close like this, there's > such a small gap between these three people, essentially what's > happening is that the dimensions are closing in on one another. > They're collapsing. Whereas before perhaps our experience was that > the dimensions were very discrete, so you had a big gap. Now the gap > is closing and it's a very small gap. That's why there's a feeling > that the depth of difference between these three possibilities > actually isn't that big. Actually, I can't argue with any of this para- graph. Been there, done that. But the fact that one *perceives* the realities as not that different doesn't make them not that different. It's the perception that has shifted IMO, not the realities and their relationship or non-relationship with each other. > A dimension is kind of like a membrane. That's why when we work with > the chakras, they're such a good example of what a dimension feels > like because you can feel these subtle membranes in the chakras > moving back and forth. A dimension is like that. It has a certain > edge to it, a circumference, and that circumference is very fine. > You can move from one edge of that circumference to the next edge > and a whole other possible reality opens up. Not impressed. Even Carlos did better than this. > Normally, we are protected from experiencing a parallel reality in > any clear way because we're locked into a framework of our > dimension. We can only experience what is right here. We don't > have the capacity to see outside that bubble. We're kind of locked > away in that bubble. There are a lot of good reasons for that. For > one thing, it keeps you focused. It keeps you connected to what's > going on so you don't bleed out into some other possibility. But > as time and consciousness are moving in the way that they are right > now, the possibility of perceiving parallel connectivity is much > more pronounced, so you can have the capacity to move out into this > other level of awareness and still maintain your own." Carlos did *much* better than this. This is basic first attention, second attention stuff. Did this person *take* this anywhere, or just rap? Curious in Sitges
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Did this person *take* this anywhere, or just rap? > > Curious in Sitges > Dear Sitgesji, That was just part of a discourse after a long lead group meditation. The comments went towards this: forward: "There's something for us to listen to about that. ...talking from the level of the heart that we're talking about, not just emotional, but the spiritual heart. ...directly connected to this opening to the heart of the world, which is really opening into the core of the earth's intelligence, the revelation of the purpose of Gaia, of our planet, its self-revealing mechanism revealing itself. That's what we're headed towards, awakening to the self-revealing mechanism of the planet in relation to the heart of its own consciousness. That feeds back into our consciousness, into our heart, into our awakening. The planet is going through expressed possibilities, and these possibilities in a sense are all living simultaneously. They can be everything from a completely apocalyptic possibility to a complete heaven-on-earth possibility, and all possibilities in between are in the range. The planet is sending out signals of possibilities from its own heart intelligence, offering different options, different ways to bring certain things about. We're at one of those convergent choice points. That's why it's such a powerful time and an amazing time." FairfieldLife
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Did this person *take* this anywhere, or just rap? > > > > Curious in Sitges > > > Dear Sitgesji, > > That was just part of a discourse after a long lead group > meditation. The comments went towards this: > > forward: > "There's something for us to listen to about that. > ...talking from the level of the heart that we're talking about, > not just emotional, but the spiritual heart. ...directly connected > to this opening to the heart of the world, which is really opening > into the core of the earth's intelligence, the revelation of the > purpose of Gaia, of our planet, its self-revealing mechanism > revealing itself. > > That's what we're headed towards, awakening to the self-revealing > mechanism of the planet in relation to the heart of its own > consciousness. That feeds back into our consciousness, into our > heart, into our awakening. The planet is going through expressed > possibilities, and these possibilities in a sense are all living > simultaneously. They can be everything from a completely apocalyptic > possibility to a complete heaven-on-earth possibility, and all > possibilities in between are in the range. The planet is sending out > signals of possibilities from its own heart intelligence, offering > different options, different ways to bring certain things about. > We're at one of those convergent choice points. That's why it's > such a powerful time and an amazing time." Ok, thanks for replying. That answers my question...it was just a New Age rap. My perspective is somewhat different. There has never been a moment in time that was any more amazing than any other, or in which it was more possible than at any other time to actually experience different realities, not just talk about them. I'm no longer interested in only talking about them, or in people who only talk about them. Alternate realities are available at every moment, and can be experienced at every moment. I'd rather experience them than talk about them or hear someone else talk about them, especially when it sounds as if the person talking is speaking from theory, not experience. When you can shift realities as quickly and effortlessly as snapping your fingers, and take the people who are meditating in the same room with you -- every one of them -- to 10-20 start- lingly different alternative realities in the space of one meditation, get back to me. Until then, talk theory all you want to those who are still wowed by theory. I won't be one of them. Just being honest...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB >wrote: > > > > > > Did this person *take* this anywhere, or just rap? > > > > > > Curious in Sitges > > > > > > Dear Sitges, > > > > That was just part of a discourse after a long led group > > meditation. The comments went towards this: > > > > forward: > > "There's something for us to listen to about that. > > ...talking from the level of the heart that we're talking about, > > not just emotional, but the spiritual heart. ...directly >connected > > to this opening to the heart of the world, which is really >opening > > into the core of the earth's intelligence, the revelation of the > > purpose of Gaia, of our planet, its self-revealing mechanism > > revealing itself. > > > > That's what we're headed towards, awakening to the self-revealing > > mechanism of the planet in relation to the heart of its own > > consciousness. That feeds back into our consciousness, into our > > heart, into our awakening. The planet is going through expressed > > possibilities, and these possibilities in a sense are all living > > simultaneously. They can be everything from a completely >apocalyptic > > possibility to a complete heaven-on-earth possibility, and all > > possibilities in between are in the range. The planet is sending >out > > signals of possibilities from its own heart intelligence, >offering > > different options, different ways to bring certain things about. > > We're at one of those convergent choice points. That's why it's > > such a powerful time and an amazing time." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ok, thanks for replying. That answers my > question...it was just a New Age rap. > > My perspective is somewhat different. There > has never been a moment in time that was any > more amazing than any other, or in which it > was more possible than at any other time to > actually experience different realities, not > just talk about them. > > I'm no longer interested in only talking about > them, or in people who only talk about them. > Alternate realities are available at every > moment, and can be experienced at every moment. I'd rather experience them than talk about them > or hear someone else talk about them, especially > when it sounds as if the person talking is > speaking from theory, not experience. > > When you can shift realities as quickly and > effortlessly as snapping your fingers, and take > the people who are meditating in the same room > with you -- every one of them -- to 10-20 start- > lingly different alternative realities in the > space of one meditation, get back to me. Until > then, talk theory all you want to those who are > still wowed by theory. I won't be one of them. > > Just being honest... > Turq, yes i agree and i suspect you would enjoy Fairfield a lot. With Best Regards, -Doug in FF
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Chakras? hummm, I wonder where he got that idea? Do you think MMY has some 'secret teachings' stashed somewhere? Good grief, the next thing you're gonna hear is 'kundalini'...yikes! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "We're going to talk about parallel reality. When I've talked to you > in the past about dimensions, we've said here's one dimension and > here's another dimension, and they're living side by side with one > another. But there's also a fabric of consciousness that bleeds back > and forth from one dimension to the other. They're not just standing > there like soldiers unrelated to each other. There's a gate or fabric > of consciousness that's flowing into one, flowing back to the other, > flowing here and there. > On a practical level, the point at which something splits off, a > choice point at which one dimension goes this way and one dimension > goes that way, where we are in the world right now we're coming to a > major choice point. > > with possibility going this way and one possibility going that way > and one possibility going another way, you really get the feeling of > how you can have a fountainhead and things can sprout out of that and > each possible parallel reality has an interrelationship with the > other ones and they're in a flow together. > > When you have choice points that are very close like this, there's > such a small gap between these three people, essentially what's > happening is that the dimensions are closing in on one another. > They're collapsing. Whereas before perhaps our experience was that > the dimensions were very discrete, so you had a big gap. Now the gap > is closing and it's a very small gap. That's why there's a feeling > that the depth of difference between these three possibilities > actually isn't that big. > > A dimension is kind of like a membrane. That's why when we work with > the chakras, they're such a good example of what a dimension feels > like because you can feel these subtle membranes in the chakras > moving back and forth. A dimension is like that. It has a certain > edge to it, a circumference, and that circumference is very fine. You > can move from one edge of that circumference to the next edge and a > whole other possible reality opens up. > > Normally, we are protected from experiencing a parallel reality in > any clear way because we're locked into a framework of our dimension. > We can only experience what is right here. We don't have the capacity > to see outside that bubble. We're kind of locked away in that bubble. > There are a lot of good reasons for that. For one thing, it keeps you > focused. It keeps you connected to what's going on so you don't bleed > out into some other possibility. But as time and consciousness are > moving in the way that they are right now, the possibility of > perceiving parallel connectivity is much more pronounced, so you can > have the capacity to move out into this other level of awareness and > still maintain your own." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Other notes, forward: "You are a Divine Being. Everything you are learning in this class is the opposite of the way you lived as a limited being. I want you to be who you truly are: Infinite, Whole, Divine. You are learning how to proceed as an Infinite, Divine Being. You must proceed with new skills for living. Learning the use of intention and attention, letting go, allowing, trusting are some of the skills that move the universe. You are now capable of moving the universe skillfully for healing, for building beauty, for releasing pain. Today we have been practicing with these skills and releasing the pain of the past, so that when you leave this class today you can live skillfully on this planet and help others live without fear." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Chakras? hummm, I wonder where he got that idea? Do you think MMY has > some 'secret teachings' stashed somewhere? Good grief, the next thing > you're gonna hear is 'kundalini'...yikes! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" > wrote: > > > > "We're going to talk about parallel reality. When I've talked to you > > in the past about dimensions, we've said here's one dimension and > > here's another dimension, and they're living side by side with one > > another. But there's also a fabric of consciousness that bleeds back > > and forth from one dimension to the other. They're not just standing > > there like soldiers unrelated to each other. There's a gate or fabric > > of consciousness that's flowing into one, flowing back to the other, > > flowing here and there. > > On a practical level, the point at which something splits off, a > > choice point at which one dimension goes this way and one dimension > > goes that way, where we are in the world right now we're coming to a > > major choice point. > > > > with possibility going this way and one possibility going that way > > and one possibility going another way, you really get the feeling of > > how you can have a fountainhead and things can sprout out of that and > > each possible parallel reality has an interrelationship with the > > other ones and they're in a flow together. > > > > When you have choice points that are very close like this, there's > > such a small gap between these three people, essentially what's > > happening is that the dimensions are closing in on one another. > > They're collapsing. Whereas before perhaps our experience was that > > the dimensions were very discrete, so you had a big gap. Now the gap > > is closing and it's a very small gap. That's why there's a feeling > > that the depth of difference between these three possibilities > > actually isn't that big. > > > > A dimension is kind of like a membrane. That's why when we work with > > the chakras, they're such a good example of what a dimension feels > > like because you can feel these subtle membranes in the chakras > > moving back and forth. A dimension is like that. It has a certain > > edge to it, a circumference, and that circumference is very fine. You > > can move from one edge of that circumference to the next edge and a > > whole other possible reality opens up. > > > > Normally, we are protected from experiencing a parallel reality in > > any clear way because we're locked into a framework of our dimension. > > We can only experience what is right here. We don't have the capacity > > to see outside that bubble. We're kind of locked away in that bubble. > > There are a lot of good reasons for that. For one thing, it keeps you > > focused. It keeps you connected to what's going on so you don't bleed > > out into some other possibility. But as time and consciousness are > > moving in the way that they are right now, the possibility of > > perceiving parallel connectivity is much more pronounced, so you can > > have the capacity to move out into this other level of awareness and > > still maintain your own." > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an anti-Neo-Advaitin). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vaj wrote: > > > > On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: > > > >> Why are you posting these "notes"? Everything I've > >> read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is > >> not news or some radical understanding. What impact > >> would any of this have on any ru meditating more than > >> 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who > >> is assuming the "guru" role in expressing these ideas? > >> Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? > > > > > > Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the spiritual > > decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems to be > > the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly not > > limited to FF!). > > > > It's great to have this stuff documented. > And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't > "found" yet, not even with TM. :) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed retching that the expression of that POV signals a major dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. "Hey, there's a meeting in the community room of First National Bank of Fairfield -- a leading expert in global finance will tell it like it is." Anyone believe that? Anyone think any expert at any discipline cannot be gainsaid by peers for illogical nuancing? No one knows Jack -- even Jack doesn't know Jack. Even Tolle's words can be found to be less than perfectly consistently used, but he's probably the clearest proponent of Advaita today -- I wouldn't label him neo-Advaitan because he's very close to perfect, and he doesn't deserve much criticism for his message. I doubt that Tolle is enlightened, but I think he can sling the lingo goodly. The long time TMers who quit the practice have a lot more clout when it comes to having an anti-TM POV than, say, well, anyone who has not put decades into closing the eyes. Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. Why? Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his shoes! A nice head start! Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those > are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an > anti-Neo-Advaitin). > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: > > > > > >> Why are you posting these "notes"? Everything I've > > >> read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is > > >> not news or some radical understanding. What impact > > >> would any of this have on any ru meditating more than > > >> 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who > > >> is assuming the "guru" role in expressing these ideas? > > >> Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? > > > > > > > > > Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the > spiritual > > > decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems > to be > > > the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly > not > > > limited to FF!). > > > > > > It's great to have this stuff documented. > > And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't > > "found" yet, not even with TM. :) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. > Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. > > Why? > > Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his > shoes! A nice head start! > > Edg > very profound & made me chuckle thanks Edg, anatol
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
---Thx...without even resorting to looking at the "theology"; very first step is to look for (in the statements of Neo-Advaitins).: 1. half-truths 2. outright false statements 3. unworkable courses of action or proposals. 4. subtexts containing self-contradictory statements. 5. and on the whole, worldviews that only remotely match the reality of our world. I know that Eckart Tolle is one of your favorites, so I will get back to you with precise examples of the above, from his latest book. Don't have it here right now. Tolle is definitely a very inspirational person, but his Neo-Advaitin platform is replete with almost countless misadventures into half- truths. But obviously, your "mind" would say there are no persons, no POV's etc; therefore everything Tolle says must be "right". (typical Neo-Advaitin nonsense). In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. > > When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are > seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's > axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion > on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers > were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. > > So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed > retching that the expression of that POV signals a major > dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. > > Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be > "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not > used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily worthless. > > "Hey, there's a meeting in the community room of First National Bank > of Fairfield -- a leading expert in global finance will tell it like > it is." > > Anyone believe that? Anyone think any expert at any discipline cannot > be gainsaid by peers for illogical nuancing? > > No one knows Jack -- even Jack doesn't know Jack. > > Even Tolle's words can be found to be less than perfectly consistently > used, but he's probably the clearest proponent of Advaita today -- I > wouldn't label him neo-Advaitan because he's very close to perfect, > and he doesn't deserve much criticism for his message. I doubt that > Tolle is enlightened, but I think he can sling the lingo goodly. > > The long time TMers who quit the practice have a lot more clout when > it comes to having an anti-TM POV than, say, well, anyone who has not > put decades into closing the eyes. > > Walk a mile in a man's shoes before you tell him he's wrong. > > Why? > > Because then, when you tell him, you're a mile away and have his > shoes! A nice head start! > > Edg > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero" wrote: > > > > --- It's not a matter of Ahhhaa! fluffy, cute mental insights. Those > > are the results. It's a matter of working your butt off. (I'm an > > anti-Neo-Advaitin). > > > > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: > > > > > > Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > >> Why are you posting these "notes"? Everything I've > > > >> read is just newage boilerplate. No big deal. This is > > > >> not news or some radical understanding. What impact > > > >> would any of this have on any ru meditating more than > > > >> 30-40 years? Most of these ideas are self-evident. Who > > > >> is assuming the "guru" role in expressing these ideas? > > > >> Who is assuming the passive, dependent chela role? > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually he may be doing a service in bringing to light the > > spiritual > > > > decrepitude and childish new age / neoadvaita shlock that seems > > to be > > > > the typical spew of Fairfield satsang groups (although certainly > > not > > > > limited to FF!). > > > > > > > > It's great to have this stuff documented. > > > And it says that Fairfielders are still seekers. IOW, they haven't > > > "found" yet, not even with TM. :) > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Duveyoung wrote: > The funniest thing to me is that no one > here has yet convinced me that they grok > Advaita enough to know what it is enough > to accept or reject it. > There's not much to grok - Adwaita is dirt simple: There is One only. It doesn't take a genius to understand that. It takes far more metaphysical mental gymnastics to understand dualism or qualified dualism. There are three issues that must be understood in order to understand Adwaita: The realization that there are *not two*, the realization that things and events are an *illusion*, and the *dispelling of illusion* by process of experiential pure conciousness. In a nutshell: There is One only. There is no creation; no destruction; no coming to be, and no ceasing to be. Things do not change, neither do they move about or stay the same. Things and events are an illusion, not real, yet not unreal. The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality. Liberation is the way to avoid the results of actions and to be free. Simple.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela Mailander wrote: > He doesn't inspire me; in fact, I can't bear > to watch that mealy-mouthed weasel. > So Edg thinks Wayne Liguorman seems 'smarmy' and you think Tolle seems 'mealy-mouthed'. Matrix thinks that Adwaita is a theology. Peter thinks its newbie boiler-plate. And Barry, who claims to have studied dualism for 35 years and to have read over 200 books about dualism doesn't even seem to have a clue about monism: he seems to be saying that there are 'separate' realities, not One. Very impressive. Bring on the drug addled clowns! Titles of interest: 'The Power of Now' A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment by Eckhart Tolle New World Library, 2004 'Consciousness Speaks' Conversations with Ramesh S. Balsekar by Ramesh S. Balsekar and Wayne Liquorman Advaita Press, 1992 'The Book of One' The Spiritual Path of Advaita by Dennis Waite O Books, 2004 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela Mailander wrote: > The only complex thing about philosophical > monism is karma. > The Buddhist teaching on karma is entailed in the Buddha's sermon on the Second Watch of the Night when the Buddha described his attainment of enlightenment. In the First Watch of the Night Buddha had attained knowledge of rebirth, but in the second he attained a different kind of knowledge, the knowledge of karma. According to the Buddhist scriptures translated by H.W. Schumann in 'The Historical Buddha', The Enlightened One is supposed to have said to his disciples: "With the heavenly eye, purified and beyond the range of human vision, I saw how beings vanish and come to be again. I saw high and low, brilliant and insignificant, and how each obtained according to his karma, a favorable or painful rebirth" (55). According to Sogyal Rinpoche, author of 'The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying', "the word karma literally means action. It is the driving force behind rebirth. Karma means action, both the power latent within actions, and the results our actions bring" (97). By "beyond the range of human vision" the Buddha meant that there is a 'Transcendental' state of consciousness that is beyond our ordinary range of perception. Works cited: 'The Historical Buddha' By H.W. Shumann Arkana, 1989 'The Tibetan Book of the Living and Dying' Chapter Six - Evolution, Karma, and Rebirth By Sogyal Rinpoche HarperCollins Books, 2002 Other interesting comments: Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: Willytex Date: Tues, Jan 10 2006 4:05 pm Subject: Jamgon Kongtrul's The Torch of Certainty http://tinyurl.com/5vqcnf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Angela, Sorry, but I must dissent. And, since words are my tools, I'll be wrong, but dissent I must. There is no "one" -- also no "non-one," and no "no's." That's three negations in a row, but it would take an infinite amount of them to even begin to cover what "THAT" isn't, and then all you'd be left with is a bunch of "wrong concepts that can be comfortably dismissed," and you'd still be bereft of any positive statement to make. Language fails us completely, and even a heartfelt dogma of neti neti neti is merely a technique for gaining intellectual clarity in the relative and not going beyond intellect -- and from this lesson we must surmise that the mind too will fail to encompass -- with the intellect -- "THAT." For this reason, no one -- including too: no "one" -- is at fault when erroneously speaking of Advaita -- everyone is necessarily wrong -- a great loop hole for neo-Ads, eh? To me the above "words schmords" is seldom consistently presented by neo-Ads, (nor would it increase the amounts in their collection plates to make such clear to the followers, eh?) The War Monger, below, shows clearly that he doesn't get it when he says, "The Transcendental Conciousness is the only Reality" -- as if he knew what even those words meantor knew how to spell consciousness for that matter. The Absolute is not conscious or non-conscious. Consciousness is conscious, but note that it hasn't been conscious eternally, for that happy-pairing is not primal -- as we have been instructed in the SBAL wherein it advises us that at some point, "consciousness becomes conscious." What became conscious? We merely label it with the word consciousness or the phrase "universal consciousness," and that immediately asserts a "reality" to it that the Absolute is VASTLY BEYOND. After all, remember that Brahma could hardly be bothered to manifest creation -- that was a tell, eh? Must be something beyond creation that cannot be created, eh? Something that Brahma thought was "enough." Something that can't be "some thing," eh? It turns out that "someness" itself must be taken off the mind like shoes before entering a Japanese house. When Ramana speaks of silence, he's not talking about noise, he's talking about no-mind, or "consciousness before it bothered to be conscious;" silence is that which would be presented in George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form as prior to "null set." Nisargadatta always harped again and again about "what were you prior to consciousness?" Try answering that! And guess what, THAT'S THE TECHNIQUE! For any attempt to look at the self directly, immediately, now ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS finds: NOTHING. That is: no ego, no identity -- and wowwyzowwy, THAT'S THE SELF that passeth all understanding. Consciousness comes and goes with the life of the meat robot. When Ramana died, all his history and wisdom and memories STOPPED RIGHT THERE. He spoke about reincarnation, but if one does a more careful reading of his words one will understand that he knew that the astral and causal planes were as temporary as any corporeal life, and a deeper reading still will reveal that he thought that these realms too were mere addictions that would be best dropped along with the identification with meat. Enlightenment is a divorce. PERIOD. No more hanky panky between the Absolute and Amness. PERIODotherwise, a cheat's afoot! If you're in love with amness, forget ever becoming the Absolute. Residing in amness is "like" being in the Absolute, but Brahma didn't want it no matter how cool it was as an ersatz placebo, and in fact His first action was to eschew it and try to find out from whence it came. Prior to consciousness. After saying that aloud, add Emeril Lagasse's "BAM!" at the end of the phrase. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For once we agree on something, willitex. > The only complex thing about philosophical monism is > karma. > > > > --- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one > > > here has yet convinced me that they grok > > > Advaita enough to know what it is enough > > > to accept or reject it. > > > > > There's not much to grok - Adwaita is dirt > > simple: There is One only. It doesn't take a > > genius to understand that. It takes far more > > metaphysical mental gymnastics to understand > > dualism or qualified dualism. > > > > There are three issues that must be understood > > in order to understand Adwaita: The realization > > that there are *not two*, the realization that > > things and events are an *illusion*, and the > > *dispelling of illusion* by process of > > experiential pure conciousness. > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > There is One only. There is no creation; no > > destruction; no coming to be, and no ceasing > > to be. Things do not change, neither do they > > move about or stay the same. Things and events
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Okay Vaj, Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. > > LOL. Oh really? > > > When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are > > seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's > > axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion > > on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers > > were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. > > > > So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed > > retching that the expression of that POV signals a major > > dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. > > I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the > constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists > are any example. > > > > Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be > > "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not > > used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily > > worthless. > > Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the > absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational > approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have > a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. > > Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern > advaitin talkers and satsangeroos. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay Vaj, > > Tomorrow I'll be blasting back -- with you, it'll only be funzies. > > Edg Edg, tomorrow you'll be "blasting back," but it will be what it always is with you -- words, words, words, typed by someone who has convinced himself that he "understands" Advaita, but who obviously has never experienced what it speaks about. I think Vaj made the best point of this whole gaggle of words. Both relative and absolute DO exist. Those who consider only one of them to be "the reality" have missed out on half of life. I would go further and say that those who have come to believe that only one is "reality" based on pure intellectual speculation alone have probably missed more than half. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > > > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > > > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > > > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > > > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > > > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > > > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. > > > > LOL. Oh really? > > > > > When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are > > > seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's > > > axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion > > > on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers > > > were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. > > > > > > So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed > > > retching that the expression of that POV signals a major > > > dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. > > > > I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the > > constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists > > are any example. > > > > > > > Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be > > > "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not > > > used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily > > > worthless. > > > > Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the > > absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational > > approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have > > a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. > > > > Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern > > advaitin talkers and satsangeroos. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
(snip) > > > "There's something for us to listen to about that. > > > ...talking from the level of the heart that we're talking about, > > > not just emotional, but the spiritual heart. ...directly > >connected > > > to this opening to the heart of the world, which is really > >opening > > > into the core of the earth's intelligence, the revelation of the > > > purpose of Gaia, of our planet, its self-revealing mechanism > > > revealing itself. (snip) You guy's forgot the 'Third Eye Club'... I remember a guy from Wisconsin, Mike Holzman... He started the Third Eye Club with a chapter in FF, back in early '80's ... Don't know if the club still exists, there? Anyway, we use to share our third eye experiences, Like being able to see karma, and into the future and stuff. It's all due to looking out of the third eye... Feeling at 'One with the All'... The more daunting task, is really connecting back directly to the soul energy, above the head, and out to the universal consciousness, Whatever that means? Go Buddhas...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Vaj, General notes: 1. I'm not enlightened by any standard I know of, but I think I have intellectual clarity about the concepts of Advaita. I find most folks talking about Advaita to be "off a bit" and not understanding the incredibly fierce philosophy that Advaita presents. It took me many readings before I got it that I wasn't grokking "silence," and that my ego was working against my understanding of it -- because Advaita is a mofo ego "killer," though to be sure, the ego is not alive and cannot be found! 2. I've read a lot of the works of the neo-Ads. 3. I've read close to all of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's works. 4. I've read Ramana's "Talks" four full times -- taking up to a year to do so each time -- reading about 30 - 40 minutes per dayand thinking hard whenever the meaning of a sentence was "not immediately obvious to me." I continue to browse it with satisfaction and resonance. 5. I've read Nisargadatta's "I Am That" at least two times and have browsed the book often enough to constitute another reading. 6. I think, for our purposes here, I have a solid education in Advaita, and think I could answer any question that these two Masters could put to me about their works. Not that I know all the Sanskrit words in the glossary, but that I understand the concepts they represent. And, do not think that I am saying that I could pull of wearing a dhoti and grabbing a rose with pinky petals and be a guru who spontaneously says the truth. I'm much more a writer who knows he needs to re-read and edit his words before he can be sure that they would resonate with Advaita to a strong degree. 7. I do not worship any master, nor do I think Ramana is operational except in a very special sense that I might not get around to explaining in this conversation. I'm all for worshiping if someone wants to do so, but to me, worshiping is bhakti, and it doesn't matter to me so much what the object of worship is, but the mental technique that one is using is all important; there's tons of methods for worship/prayer that work, but some are better than others, and some practitioners are far more adept than others. 8. I feel I have a very very strong intuition, but I have an equally long history of ignoring its red flag waving -- I frequently do something I know to be wrong. It is this intuition that is my alarm bell that rings when neo-Ads present themselves. Since I have an ego the size of the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man in Ghostbusters, I think I'm all set to recognize it in others, and if there is egoic attachment by this reckoning skill of mine, then I read their words with an extra sharp red pencil, because subtleties are the be all and end all of Advaita. Okay, now to your contributions below: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads. > > LOL. Oh really? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have an ego, but Advaita's axioms clearly show that language cannot be expected to present the knowledge completely since it is dualistic, and many a language's grammar forces constructions that are incorrect but are nonetheless the closest that that language can get. Many languages have huge differences in how they view time and space for instance -- see S. I. Hayakawa's "Language in Thought and Action's" ideas about the Navajos' POV. Godel and quantum physics know this too. "This sentence is false." for example, is beyond truth or falsity, yet it can be employed didactically just as math's imaginary numbers are a powerful tool for clarity. (Einstein would be nothing if not for Lorenz's contraction theorem's breakthrough use of imaginary numbers - e.g. the square root of minus one -- which had to be discovered before Einstein "had the math" to embody relativity.) I often find neo-Ad statements are peppered with "syntax forced errors." Ramana is quite clear that a statement like "I am that," is a case of "one" being made into "three" -- knower, knowing, known, and that this proves that the intellect cannot be expected to bring one to unity. The intellect takes one to a doorway, and the ego must be left behind at this point. I often find neo-Ads thinking egoically but also skilled with a bristling defensiveness and having an arsenal of "deflection blurbs" that can turn the tables on any neophyte quickly and take the spotlight off the "guru's ego." Like: "Who just now believed your words?" Neo-Ads should know -- but often do not -- that only pur
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Peter wrote: > > And to add to the mix: Ramana made it very clear that > Atma Vichara is only for a very select few who have > done preliminary work (i.e., yoga)and have sattvic > intellects. If you attempt atma vichara and you don't > awaken, you have to hit the asana mat again! This > rather important point seems to be missing from most > neoavaitins rap. Peter, I'd like to see what words of Ramana would make a case for your above statement. Ramana, it seems, was himself a case of someone "born close to enlightenment." He probably could have gotten free by merely eating cherry Pop Tarts and smoking beedis. He does acknowledge that the nervous system must be refined for atma vichara to "do the final work," but he encouraged all to try it, and if that didn't get huge results, he contended that that practice would culture the nervous system such that eventually it would free one. My "take" is that Ramana said that bhakti or asanas or pranayama were all good techniques for refining one's ability to "attend to subtlety," that is, preparing one for the doing of atma vichara, but I'm thinking that he never presented atma vichara as "only something for the very advance practitioner to attempt and, say, a waste of time for others." So, I'm hoping you have something definitive up your sleeve to correct me if I'm wrong on this take, because it is quite an important issue, but surely you know that Nisargadatta is far more informal about this issue and considered "Who am I?" a very powerful technique that the masses should use. Not the asking of the question, but the attending of the self that it leads to. Yet, Nisargadatta did pujas daily in his upper room packed with believers. He wasn't afraid of multiple approaches to freedom. I personally think that practicing TM is a wonderful method of culturing the nervous system that is equal to worship or asanas or pranayama. Here's a very strange thing: I think the TM siddhis offer one an obvious stance about atma vichara and the masses: after only a few months of practicing TM, one is allowed to learn the siddhis, and the technique requires one to "return to the self" after the sutra is expressed. Only atma vichara can return one to the self -- so right there's TM saying the masses can do atma vichara. I was PROFOUNDLY disturbed when I got my first siddhi instruction and was told to return to the self -- FUCK! Wasn't that the goal of goals, and here it was supposed to be something we all could do well enough to practice a siddhi? I was angry at what I considered then and now to be a huge change in the TMO's dogma. The thing I most rely on about this issue is the omnipresence of self. Ask anyone if they're alive, here, now, real -- anyone knows that they exist. That can only be because of a basic human ability to do atma vichara. One knows one is sentient, and it cannot be gainsaid. Are you here? You just did atma vichara in my book. To me, the big challenge of atma vichara is that practicing it results in nothing being experienced. That is: no thing as an object of consciousness can be found, but the experiencer is nonetheless there. This is goal of TM -- wanting the mantra to be finally dropped and to transcend. This nothingness, this silence sought, this quiet witness cannot be attended to, so one only knows that doing atma vichara is successful if one gets zilch!!! This zilchness experience negatively reinforces the human delusion of causality, see? One cannot get to the bottom of the lotus stalk, but one IS that bottom all the time. Only by ceasing ALL DOINGNESS does the doer stand clear. Like that. Okay, let's see if anyone can tell me where I'm confused above. Edg
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From a bud, only a promise. > Then a gentle opening: > Rich blooming, bursting fragrance, > The fulfillment of the center. Was someone talking about the yonified field a few posts back.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Duveyoung wrote: > I'm not enlightened by any standard I > know of, but I think I have intellectual > clarity about the concepts of Advaita. > [snip] This is an excellent response, one of the best I've read on this forum in over five years. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Good job! (Now if we could only get Edg to turn off the word wrap and forget the .rtf) :-) Notes from Satsang Fairfield: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175722
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Geeze Vaj, don't hold back! Did you stub your toe or something? > > Vaj, > > General notes: > > 1. I'm not enlightened by any standard I know of, but I think I > > have intellectual clarity about the concepts of Advaita. I find > > most folks talking about Advaita to be "off a bit" and not > > understanding the incredibly fierce philosophy that Advaita > > presents. It took me many readings before I got it that I wasn't > > grokking "silence," and that my ego was working against my > > understanding of it -- because Advaita is a mofo ego "killer," > > though to be sure, the ego is not alive and cannot be found! > > > > 2. I've read a lot of the works of the neo-Ads. > > > > 3. I've read close to all of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's works. > IMO, the problem with all of the above is that they were mostly > written or transcribed via the POV of the students egos and do not > represent authentic advaita vedanta, esp. lacking a teacher. I like to > call this 'dead avaitin syndrome': outside the presence of a master of > the tradition, ego translates and transcribes the teaching and these > works are then merely read by the ego of the neoadvaitin. Subtle ego > hears what it wants to hear. > > This whole syndrome is the start of neoadvaita ego poetry. Ego LOVES > advaita partially digested and hurled. It's the perfect place to learn > to "neoadvaita shuffle" but it's really kinda like learning to dance > by reading books. Whew, I guess all that work you've put into Buddhism paid offlook at the massive amount of forbearance you're displaying! Wow, you'd never see a Buddhist having any of the above faux- Ads' failings. Look at all that universal brotherly Buddhist love that sees past the errors of seekers in all the traditions and shines a bounteous spirit upon their struggles. I don't know if I'm worthy of your taking the time to correct me when it's done with such heart, such compassion, such practical psychology that takes the student from where he's at to a higher plane. I'm so not worthy! Oh well, I guess it's just my turn to be clunked by an unopened can of whup-ass. That was the tell, you didn't open the can! Okay, now time to lay some cards on the table. I'm not a disciple of anyone if all I'm doing is reading books. I don't and never have worshiped Ramana. I've merely done TM and pretended that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was my guru; so given that history, I have very little cred to justify pushing ANY dogma here at FFL. But your tone above seems to indicate that I've sinned in your eyes -- my sin being that I've expressed a POV that is necessarily a work in progress and burdened by egoic blindness -- as all POVs are. Vaj, if your intent is to smack me sane, er, it didn't work. After 29 years in the chair, selling my soul, my career, my life and my family to a cult, do you think you've got a chance to talk me into doing anything more along those lines? I know some practicing Buddhists and have seen the tremendous amount of time they put into their daily practices -- eh, no thanks. Why? Because all of them were obsessed with their teachers and very invested in climbing some evolutionary ladder in the eyes of their peers and teachers -- in short, very much like TM's Purusha and Mother Divine -- seemingly dedicated and a lifestyle pinched with sacrifice, but "Where's the beef?" Vaj, your moods and defensiveness are all anyone needs to see that Buddhism has a lot more to do to your heart -- a heart I've resonated with many a time, so I'm not any better than you, but unless you wish to claim that your lashing out at folks is coming from a very deep place of moral clarity such as Christ was imagined to be coming from when he drove the money lenders from the temple, you're lashing out cannot be a precisely wrought spiritual lesson to the lashee. Are you claiming such clarity? Probably not. In the meantime, trank it down, Boy! This is where one trots out reincarnation and lifetimes of spiritual work as concepts to inspire one. Well, not me. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me everyday for 29 years, and yep, I'm just about all fooled out. And I'm not asking anyone here to jump into Advaita or suggest it can produce faster results than any other technique. I don't have a dhoti or a collection plate. When I wince at posts here that seem so out of harmony with my understandings of Advaita, it may be lacquered with an egoic veneer when I express it, but given my tons of hours of handling the concepts, I'm pretty sure when I say "something's not right" that I'm "onto something." Such as it is, my "expertise" serves me well in that I have adopted Advaita as a philosophy that is found reflected in most scriptures, and it has given me enough clarity to ask hard questions when, say, two Mormons knock on my door, or a practicing Buddhist wants me to recite a mantra 10,000 times. If you have a family, if you want a retirement scenario of some worth, if you have ye
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Hey Edg, This post has a fascinating blend off skepticism and belief. Here is a question that always intrigues me... Do you believe that humans can reach a state of complete knowledge (enlightenment or whatever word describes a superior state), and why? What makes you see through the myths of teachers like MMY but then believe that some other teacher is or was in a superior state of mind? I may have posed the question poorly but I'm sure you'll catch my drift. Where are you drawing your own belief lines and why? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geeze Vaj, don't hold back! > > Did you stub your toe or something? > > > Vaj, > > > General notes: > > > 1. I'm not enlightened by any standard I know of, but I think I > > > have intellectual clarity about the concepts of Advaita. I find > > > most folks talking about Advaita to be "off a bit" and not > > > understanding the incredibly fierce philosophy that Advaita > > > presents. It took me many readings before I got it that I wasn't > > > grokking "silence," and that my ego was working against my > > > understanding of it -- because Advaita is a mofo ego "killer," > > > though to be sure, the ego is not alive and cannot be found! > > > > > > 2. I've read a lot of the works of the neo-Ads. > > > > > > 3. I've read close to all of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's works. > > IMO, the problem with all of the above is that they were mostly > > written or transcribed via the POV of the students egos and do not > > represent authentic advaita vedanta, esp. lacking a teacher. I like to > > call this 'dead avaitin syndrome': outside the presence of a master of > > the tradition, ego translates and transcribes the teaching and these > > works are then merely read by the ego of the neoadvaitin. Subtle ego > > hears what it wants to hear. > > > > This whole syndrome is the start of neoadvaita ego poetry. Ego LOVES > > advaita partially digested and hurled. It's the perfect place to learn > > to "neoadvaita shuffle" but it's really kinda like learning to dance > > by reading books. > > Whew, I guess all that work you've put into Buddhism paid offlook at > the massive amount of forbearance you're displaying! Wow, you'd never > see a Buddhist having any of the above faux- > Ads' failings. Look at all that universal brotherly Buddhist love that > sees past the errors of seekers in all the traditions and shines a > bounteous spirit upon their struggles. I don't know if I'm worthy of > your taking the time to correct me when it's done with such heart, such > compassion, such practical psychology that takes the student from where > he's at to a higher plane. I'm so not worthy! > > Oh well, I guess it's just my turn to be clunked by an unopened can of > whup-ass. That was the tell, you didn't open the can! > > Okay, now time to lay some cards on the table. > > I'm not a disciple of anyone if all I'm doing is reading books. I don't > and never have worshiped Ramana. I've merely done TM and pretended that > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was my guru; so given that history, I have very > little cred to justify pushing ANY dogma here at FFL. But your tone > above seems to indicate that I've sinned in your eyes -- my sin being > that I've expressed a POV that is necessarily a work in progress and > burdened by egoic blindness -- as all POVs are. > > Vaj, if your intent is to smack me sane, er, it didn't work. > > After 29 years in the chair, selling my soul, my career, my life and my > family to a cult, do you think you've got a chance to talk me into doing > anything more along those lines? I know some practicing Buddhists and > have seen the tremendous amount of time they put into their daily > practices -- eh, no thanks. Why? Because all of them were obsessed > with their teachers and very invested in climbing some evolutionary > ladder in the eyes of their peers and teachers -- in short, very much > like TM's Purusha and Mother Divine -- seemingly dedicated and a > lifestyle pinched with sacrifice, but "Where's the beef?" > > Vaj, your moods and defensiveness are all anyone needs to see that > Buddhism has a lot more to do to your heart -- a heart I've resonated > with many a time, so I'm not any better than you, but unless you wish to > claim that your lashing out at folks is coming from a very deep place of > moral clarity such as Christ was imagined to be coming from when he > drove the money lenders from the temple, you're lashing out cannot be a > precisely wrought spiritual lesson to the lashee. Are you claiming such > clarity? Probably not. In the meantime, trank it down, Boy! > > This is where one trots out reincarnation and lifetimes of spiritual > work as concepts to inspire one. Well, not me. Fool me once, shame on > you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me everyday for 29 years, and > yep, I'm just about all fooled out. > > And I'm not asking anyone here to jump into Advaita or suggest it can
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
It was reveled today that a team of top physicists at CERN and SLAC have failed again in their attempts to create an egoic reactor. The theory behind their research is premised on the notion that the forces holding the ego together are far more powerful than those holding together an atom. Thus their work focuses on attempts to split the ego -- yielding energy too cheap to meter. They have now reoriented their work to a macroscopic level whereby they tie up egos and then taunt them. Not the same amount of energy released as when splitting the ego, but still impressive, indeed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Curtis, Thanks for asking. During TM meditation, I've had some good experiences of expansion, kundalini rising, and other stuff that one doesn't read about anywhere but in esoteric literatures. I'm pretty sure I've had truly spiritual events that cannot be explained away by psychology's clockwork-models. So, I believe that I've delved at least a little into spirituality. Enough that I believe there's a way for a nervous system to function that resonates with mystical concepts, and that that freedom can be achieved by "work." A lot of work. But I also now believe that one life's time is hardly enough to get enlightened -- the task is vast, and I'm spirit-willing but flesh-weak. In case it wasn't clear, I could be entirely wrong about enlightenment, and I know it. I think some folks can have some goodish experience, and that's all they need for a lifetime of talking about it -- like one peek behind Oz's curtain is all it takes to be an authority. To me, my experiences could all have been daydreams between mantras, but my intuition says otherwise. But, despite my saying this, I'm not going to enter an ashram anytime soonish. I'd rather be, well, caught up with life's attachments and pay the penalty when it's time for my ego to be stomped. I did eighteen hours a day in the chair for eight months on TTC -- and all I got was this lousy tee shirt. That's too much work for the payout, and I don't see any other religion producing stronger mystical experiences in neophytes any better than TM seemed to do so. The only reason I believe Ramana et al were enlightened is that their words resonate with mystical philosophy, their lives were exemplary and attracted a spontaneous following, and my own experiences in a small way validates the concept of freedom. Not much to brag about really. And, get this, this may not be something anyone here would expect me to say, but I find Advaita more fierce than Buddhism when it comes to having a "void." Atheists would be hard pressed to express a more "un-godly" view than Advaita. Advaita is such a one-stop-shop for naysaying any dogma. Even Brahma didn't want to hear about it, and instead thought He could find something at the bottom of the lotus stalk. When He gave up, that was Him being an Advaitan and recognizing that "beyond means beyond." No mind power can pinch the Absolute's ass and say, "Hiya Babe." Now, here's my bottom line today: if I get enlightened today, and then die, or if I never get enlightened and then die, same result. Same result. I hear a train a rollin, but a ticket to ride costs too much, and that's what tortures me. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Edg, > > This post has a fascinating blend off skepticism and belief. Here is > a question that always intrigues me... > > Do you believe that humans can reach a state of complete knowledge > (enlightenment or whatever word describes a superior state), and why? > What makes you see through the myths of teachers like MMY but then > believe that some other teacher is or was in a superior state of mind? > > I may have posed the question poorly but I'm sure you'll catch my > drift. Where are you drawing your own belief lines and why? > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Geeze Vaj, don't hold back! > > > > Did you stub your toe or something? > > > > Vaj, > > > > General notes: > > > > 1. I'm not enlightened by any standard I know of, but I think I > > > > have intellectual clarity about the concepts of Advaita. I find > > > > most folks talking about Advaita to be "off a bit" and not > > > > understanding the incredibly fierce philosophy that Advaita > > > > presents. It took me many readings before I got it that I wasn't > > > > grokking "silence," and that my ego was working against my > > > > understanding of it -- because Advaita is a mofo ego "killer," > > > > though to be sure, the ego is not alive and cannot be found! > > > > > > > > 2. I've read a lot of the works of the neo-Ads. > > > > > > > > 3. I've read close to all of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's works. > > > IMO, the problem with all of the above is that they were mostly > > > written or transcribed via the POV of the students egos and do not > > > represent authentic advaita vedanta, esp. lacking a teacher. I like to > > > call this 'dead avaitin syndrome': outside the presence of a master of > > > the tradition, ego translates and transcribes the teaching and these > > > works are then merely read by the ego of the neoadvaitin. Subtle ego > > > hears what it wants to hear. > > > > > > This whole syndrome is the start of neoadvaita ego poetry. Ego LOVES > > > advaita partially digested and hurled. It's the perfect place to learn > > > to "neoadvaita shuffle" but it's really kinda like learning to dance > > > by reading books. > > > > Whew, I guess all that work you've put into Buddhism paid offloo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis, > > Thanks for asking. > > During TM meditation, I've had some good experiences of expansion, > kundalini rising, and other stuff that one doesn't read about anywhere > but in esoteric literatures. I'm pretty sure I've had truly spiritual > events that cannot be explained away by psychology's clockwork-models. > > So, I believe that I've delved at least a little into spirituality. > Enough that I believe there's a way for a nervous system to function > that resonates with mystical concepts, and that that freedom can be > achieved by "work." A lot of work. Yes! Work. Effort. Strain. Sweat your way to freedom. Thats the ticket. (Contrary to what one of the cougars said on SNL recently, when asked why she referred to it as a "Blow-Joy". "Well, its certainly isn't a job."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Actually, I think you can do it in about 7 minutes, and it's worth the read. Edg is on a good roll here, and the last couple days. Nothing could be finer than pushing the buttons, and seeing what comes out. Regards Edg. Thanks for posting! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 4, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Duveyoung wrote: > > > Geeze Vaj, don't hold back! > > > > Did you stub your toe or something? > > > > Vaj, > > > > General notes: > > > > 1. I'm not enlightened by any standard I know of, but I think I > > > > have intellectual clarity about the concepts of Advaita. I find > > > > most folks talking about Advaita to be "off a bit" and not > > > > understanding the incredibly fierce philosophy that Advaita > > > > presents. It took me many readings before I got it that I wasn't > > > > grokking "silence," and that my ego was working against my > > > > understanding of it -- because Advaita is a mofo ego "killer," > > > > though to be sure, the ego is not alive and cannot be found! > > > > > > > > 2. I've read a lot of the works of the neo-Ads. > > > > > > > > 3. I've read close to all of Ramana's and Nisargadatta's works. > > > IMO, the problem with all of the above is that they were mostly > > > written or transcribed via the POV of the students egos and do not > > > represent authentic advaita vedanta, esp. lacking a teacher. I > > like to > > > call this 'dead avaitin syndrome': outside the presence of a > > master of > > > the tradition, ego translates and transcribes the teaching and these > > > works are then merely read by the ego of the neoadvaitin. Subtle ego > > > hears what it wants to hear. > > > > > > This whole syndrome is the start of neoadvaita ego poetry. Ego LOVES > > > advaita partially digested and hurled. It's the perfect place to > > learn > > > to "neoadvaita shuffle" but it's really kinda like learning to dance > > > by reading books. > > > > Whew, I guess all that work you've put into Buddhism paid > > offlook at the massive amount of forbearance you're displaying! > > Wow, you'd never see a Buddhist having any of the above faux- > > Ads' failings. Look at all that universal brotherly Buddhist love > > that sees past the errors of seekers in all the traditions and > > shines a bounteous spirit upon their struggles. I don't know if I'm > > worthy of your taking the time to correct me when it's done with > > such heart, such compassion, such practical psychology that takes > > the student from where he's at to a higher plane. I'm so not worthy! > > > > Oh well, I guess it's just my turn to be clunked by an unopened can > > of whup-ass. That was the tell, you didn't open the can! > > > > Okay, now time to lay some cards on the table. > > > > I'm not a disciple of anyone if all I'm doing is reading books. I > > don't and never have worshiped Ramana. I've merely done TM and > > pretended that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was my guru; so given that > > history, I have very little cred to justify pushing ANY dogma here > > at FFL. But your tone above seems to indicate that I've sinned in > > your eyes -- my sin being that I've expressed a POV that is > > necessarily a work in progress and burdened by egoic blindness -- as > > all POVs are. > > > > Vaj, if your intent is to smack me sane, er, it didn't work. > > > > After 29 years in the chair, selling my soul, my career, my life and > > my family to a cult, do you think you've got a chance to talk me > > into doing anything more along those lines? I know some practicing > > Buddhists and have seen the tremendous amount of time they put into > > their daily practices -- eh, no thanks. Why? Because all of them > > were obsessed with their teachers and very invested in climbing some > > evolutionary ladder in the eyes of their peers and teachers -- in > > short, very much like TM's Purusha and Mother Divine -- seemingly > > dedicated and a lifestyle pinched with sacrifice, but "Where's the > > beef?" > > > > Vaj, your moods and defensiveness are all anyone needs to see that > > Buddhism has a lot more to do to your heart -- a heart I've > > resonated with many a time, so I'm not any better than you, but > > unless you wish to claim that your lashing out at folks is coming > > from a very deep place of moral clarity such as Christ was imagined > > to be coming from when he drove the money lenders from the temple, > > you're lashing out cannot be a precisely wrought spiritual lesson to > > the lashee. Are you claiming such clarity? Probably not. In the > > meantime, trank it down, Boy! > > > > This is where one trots out reincarnation and lifetimes of spiritual > > work as concepts to inspire one. Well, not me. Fool me once, shame > > on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me everyday for 29 years, > > and yep, I'm just about all fooled out. > > > > And I'm n
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Duveyoung wrote: > Now, here's my bottom line today: if I > get enlightened today, and then die, or > if I never get enlightened and then > die, same result. > [snip] There's just one little error in this statement. You are ALREADY enlightened. All you have to do is dispell the illusion that there is birth and death - there is no coming to be; no dissolution; no moving about; no change; no staying the same. According to Brahmananda Saraswati, there is nothing but Light; no other illumination is needed. So, you can meditate or do asanas; you can read and you can run and jump. But really none of these activities can dispell the illusion. In order to dispell the illusion all you need to do is realize that you are not going to get any more enlightenment than you are going to get. When you realize that, you can stop all your striving. Just work out your remaining karma with dilligence. 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Vaj wrote: > Actually there's a new crop of Neo-Buddhists who > follow very, very similar patterns that we see > in Neo-Advaita circles these daze. > New crop? According to Guadapadacharya, the central doctrine of Adwaita is 'ajativada', that is, non-production. Nothing is produced anywhere at any time; there is no birth, no production of anything, no cause and effect. Therefore, no real objective world outside of con- sciousness. Actualy we are mistaken in our experience of things and events. We only 'seem' to see things and things only 'appear' to be real. All sensory and mental experience, with the exception of pure contentless consciousness, is illusion, just like in a dream. 22. Nothing whatever is brought into existence, whether from itself or from something else: nothing at all! Not anything existent, non-existent or both is ever orginated. Nagarjuna, the brilliant Madhyamika logician, agrees with this in his 'Four Negations'. Work cited: 'Dispelling Illusion' Gaudapada's Alatasanti By Douglas A. Fox State University of New York Press, 1993 Page 82.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
---More Neo-Advaitin Wayne Liquorman crap. FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Duveyoung wrote: > > Now, here's my bottom line today: if I > > get enlightened today, and then die, or > > if I never get enlightened and then > > die, same result. > > > [snip] > > There's just one little error in this > statement. You are ALREADY enlightened. > > All you have to do is dispell the illusion > that there is birth and death - there is > no coming to be; no dissolution; no > moving about; no change; no staying the > same. > > According to Brahmananda Saraswati, there > is nothing but Light; no other illumination > is needed. So, you can meditate or do asanas; > you can read and you can run and jump. But > really none of these activities can dispell > the illusion. > > In order to dispell the illusion all you > need to do is realize that you are not going > to get any more enlightenment than you are > going to get. When you realize that, you can > stop all your striving. Just work out your > remaining karma with dilligence. > > 'Dispelling Illusion' > Gaudapada's Alatasanti > Douglas A. Fox > State University of New York Press, 1993 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Curtis wrote: > I don't believe that humans know that their > silent self is the basis of creation just > because if can feel like that is true. > What kind of assumptions would you need to entertain in order to believe that there is a 'creation' - since it has been established that there is in fact, no 'science of creative intelligence'? What epistemology, theory of knowledge, would you cite to indicate that things or events were created? Doesn't the idea of a creation infer that there must have been a creator, an intelligent designer? 1:1 Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise. Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika: http://tinyurl.com/666v3s
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
yifuxero wrote: > ---More Neo-Advaitin Wayne Liquorman crap. > Exactly, which parts of my message are 'neo-adwaita Wayne Liguorman crap' and which parts are from Gaudapadacharya? "Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada. >From the absolute standpoint origination is an impossibility. The various theories of creation - that it is the expansion of God or it is the will of God or it is for God's enjoyment or it is an illusion like a dream or it proceeds from time - are all rejected by Gaudapaada." Gaudapada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada > > There's just one little error in this > > statement. You are ALREADY enlightened. > > > > All you have to do is dispell the illusion > > that there is birth and death - there is > > no coming to be; no dissolution; no > > moving about; no change; no staying the > > same. > > > > According to Brahmananda Saraswati, there > > is nothing but Light; no other illumination > > is needed. So, you can meditate or do asanas; > > you can read and you can run and jump. But > > really none of these activities can dispell > > the illusion. > > > > In order to dispell the illusion all you > > need to do is realize that you are not going > > to get any more enlightenment than you are > > going to get. When you realize that, you can > > stop all your striving. Just work out your > > remaining karma with dilligence. > > > > 'Dispelling Illusion' > > Gaudapada's Alatasanti > > Douglas A. Fox > > State University of New York Press, 1993 > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Curtis wrote: > > I don't believe that humans know that their > > silent self is the basis of creation just > > because if can feel like that is true. > > > What kind of assumptions would you need to > entertain in order to believe that there is > a 'creation' - since it has been established > that there is in fact, no 'science of creative > intelligence'? I am not absolutely skeptical of all sensory data. I accept that we have enough evidence to conclude that there is a creation without having to assume it. > > What epistemology, theory of knowledge, would > you cite to indicate that things or events > were created? I wouldn't. Doesn't the idea of a creation > infer that there must have been a creator, an > intelligent designer? Absolutely not. This is completely fallacious. There can be a primacy of existence itself without the need for a creator. If this fallacy was valid you would need to imagine a creator for the creator in an infinite regress. I stop at creation itself without the need to imagine a creator. > > 1:1 > > Neither from itself nor from another, > Nor from both, > Nor without a cause, > Does anything whatever, anywhere arise. > > Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika: > http://tinyurl.com/666v3s >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> > What kind of assumptions would you need > > to entertain in order to believe that > > there is a 'creation' - since it has > > been established that there is in fact, > > no 'science of creative intelligence'? > > Curtis wrote: > This is completely fallacious. > Maybe so, but it just seems more logical to me to think that there's no creation because we don't experience anything in life that would lead us to infer that there are any things or events. I mean what's to prove that we aren't in fact dreaming? Is there a single thing in the waking state that we cannot experience in a dream? We do the same things in dreams that we do in the waking state: in dreams we can run and jump and consult our friends. > There can be a primacy of existence itself > without the need for a creator. If this > fallacy was valid you would need to imagine > a creator for the creator in an infinite > regress. I stop at creation itself without > the need to imagine a creator. > In order to avoid the fallacy of infinite regress, a person would have to propose an uncaused cause, and accept the idea of causation. But what if there is no causation? Causation implies change, but can one thing change into another thing? This seems illogical. According to Sage Kapila, creation is impossible, for something cannot come out of nothing; change implies something to change; "whatever is, always is, and whatever is not, never is." - Samkhyakarika, XVII
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Doesn't the idea of a creation > > infer that there must have been a creator, an > > intelligent designer? > > Absolutely not. This is completely fallacious. There can be a > primacy of existence itself without the need for a creator. If this > fallacy was valid you would need to imagine a creator for the creator > in an infinite regress. I stop at creation itself without the need to > imagine a creator. > Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* thinking...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, > couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the > creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* > thinking... Not without redefining every important characteristic in most definitions of the word "creator" that I know. My process of perception effects the world I know, but that reality only effects me. I believe that there are people outside myself who are interacting with the world also. I may have missed your point completely. I can create a song and be the creator of that, but when I see a tree I am not creating the tree. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > Doesn't the idea of a creation > > > infer that there must have been a creator, an > > > intelligent designer? > > > > Absolutely not. This is completely fallacious. There can be a > > primacy of existence itself without the need for a creator. If this > > fallacy was valid you would need to imagine a creator for the creator > > in an infinite regress. I stop at creation itself without the need > to > > imagine a creator. > > > Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, > couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the > creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* > thinking... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, > > couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are the > > creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* > > thinking... > > Not without redefining every important characteristic in most > definitions of the word "creator" that I know. My process of > perception effects the world I know, but that reality only effects me. > I believe that there are people outside myself who are interacting > with the world also. I may have missed your point completely. I can > create a song and be the creator of that, but when I see a tree I am > not creating the tree. > Actually my hypothesis is simple yet radical-- If the future and the past occur solely in the mind, why then wouldn't you be creating the tree you speak of above? All we know about the tree is what has been observed, and all you specifically know about the tree is what you are personally observing. Same with the "people outside myself"...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> Actually my hypothesis is simple yet radical-- If the future and the > past occur solely in the mind, why then wouldn't you be creating the > tree you speak of above? All we know about the tree is what has been > observed, and all you specifically know about the tree is what you > are personally observing. Same with the "people outside myself"... > I think we have more of a consensus on the basics than that don't we? I can ask my dad when he planted a tree in the yard of my family home. From that I have a pretty good understanding about the tree outside my own personal observation. Don't the terms future and past have a reality outside our own personal existence? For living creatures time is a pretty cruel master and the difference between past and future is critical to us all. Are you taking the position of solipsism? Again, I may be missing your point entirely. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > Since you are the primary filter through which all input flows, > > > couldn't it be said that since you are the perceiver, you are > the > > > creator also? No POV expressed here, but curious about *your* > > > thinking... > > > > Not without redefining every important characteristic in most > > definitions of the word "creator" that I know. My process of > > perception effects the world I know, but that reality only effects > me. > > I believe that there are people outside myself who are interacting > > with the world also. I may have missed your point completely. I > can > > create a song and be the creator of that, but when I see a tree I > am > > not creating the tree. > > > Actually my hypothesis is simple yet radical-- If the future and the > past occur solely in the mind, why then wouldn't you be creating the > tree you speak of above? All we know about the tree is what has been > observed, and all you specifically know about the tree is what you > are personally observing. Same with the "people outside myself"... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you taking the position of solipsism? Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Actually my hypothesis is simple yet radical-- If the future and the > > past occur solely in the mind, why then wouldn't you be creating the > > tree you speak of above? All we know about the tree is what has been > > observed, and all you specifically know about the tree is what you > > are personally observing. Same with the "people outside myself"... > > > > I think we have more of a consensus on the basics than that don't we? > I can ask my dad when he planted a tree in the yard of my family > home. From that I have a pretty good understanding about the tree > outside my own personal observation. Don't the terms future and past > have a reality outside our own personal existence? For living > creatures time is a pretty cruel master and the difference between > past and future is critical to us all. Are you taking the position of > solipsism? Continuing on with what you wrote, whatever you ask your dad is based on your observation of him, and your observation of his reply. Its all you, creating him, in effect, and your interpretation of his past observation of the tree. With regard to past and future, yes, they exist differently as operational concepts, but there is no way to experientially separate them from right now. Anyway, I am not trying to convince you of anything-- just exploring my hypothesis.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > interesting too, though tangential, that the very notion of solipsism is often referred to in negative terms--
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus cures most solipsists of their naive belief that they create the universe all by themselves. It's amazing how much one learns about interdependent origination while gasping desperately for air. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed > that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus > cures most solipsists of their naive belief that > they create the universe all by themselves. It's > amazing how much one learns about interdependent > origination while gasping desperately for air. :-) Barry, this is way, *way* out of your league.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Jim wrote: > Actually my hypothesis is simple yet > radical-- If the future and the past > occur solely in the mind, why then > wouldn't you be creating the tree you > speak of above? All we know about the > tree is what has been observed, and > all you specifically know about the > tree is what you are personally > observing. Same with the "people > outside myself"... > My hypothesis is even more radical-- there's no 'past' because it doesn't exist anymore; there's no 'future' because it hasn't happened yet; there's no 'now' because as soon as you say now, it's past. And there's no 'mind' for any of these ideas to be observed in the first place. This radical hypothesis holds true regardless of whether all is created, a creation, if it is permanent, or if all is impermanent, or both, or neither. The only thing that I can fully agree with is that I *think* I exist, but maybe not. I once had a dream that I was a man dreaming that I was a butterfly. But now I don't know - maybe I am a butterfly dreaming I am a man. One time I was looking up in the sky and I fell into a ditch and I hurt myself real bad. It's good to dream, but it's not good to dream too much. There must be a 'middle way'. But it wouldn't be a good thing to want a 'middle way' too much.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed > > that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus > > cures most solipsists of their naive belief that > > they create the universe all by themselves. It's > > amazing how much one learns about interdependent > > origination while gasping desperately for air. :-) > > Barry, this is way, *way* out of your league. No, it just settles the question instantly. A solar plexus strike is good for that; just out of the blue, no warning whatsoever, and the budding solipsist can't breathe...the nerve center controlling his diaphragm just refuses to function. It does no permanent harm, but for about a minute, minute and a half, there is simply no possibility of him believing that he is in control of his life or that he creates everything in it. Hell, he can't even create the ability to breathe. Solipsism is a pampered shut-in's belief system. You can only believe in it if you don't interact with the world much, and then primarily in your imagination. Fairly well- to-do, pampered people who have protected themselves from the world around them ever affecting them much can come to believe that they "create" it. But one quick shoto strike to the solar plexus, and the truth of interdependent origination is made clear. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in this type of theoretical mental exercise in college.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed > > > that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus > > > cures most solipsists of their naive belief that > > > they create the universe all by themselves. It's > > > amazing how much one learns about interdependent > > > origination while gasping desperately for air. :-) > > > > Barry, this is way, *way* out of your league. > > No, it just settles the question instantly. Barry, it's way, way, *way* out of your league. > A solar plexus strike is good for that; just > out of the blue, no warning whatsoever, and > the budding solipsist can't breathe...the > nerve center controlling his diaphragm just > refuses to function. It does no permanent > harm, but for about a minute, minute and a > half, there is simply no possibility of him > believing that he is in control of his life > or that he creates everything in it. Hell, > he can't even create the ability to breathe. > > Solipsism is a pampered shut-in's belief > system. You can only believe in it if you > don't interact with the world much, and then > primarily in your imagination. Fairly well- > to-do, pampered people who have protected > themselves from the world around them ever > affecting them much can come to believe > that they "create" it. But one quick shoto > strike to the solar plexus, and the truth of > interdependent origination is made clear. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. It's just that you can't really settle the pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically possible. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> It's just that you can't really settle the > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > possible. I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual possibility though. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. Solipsism was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > It's just that you can't really settle the > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > possible. > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed > > > that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus > > > cures most solipsists of their naive belief that > > > they create the universe all by themselves. It's > > > amazing how much one learns about interdependent > > > origination while gasping desperately for air. :-) > > > > Barry, this is way, *way* out of your league. > > No, it just settles the question instantly. > A solar plexus strike is good for that; just > out of the blue, no warning whatsoever, and > the budding solipsist can't breathe... Yes, he has created his recognition of his inability to breathe. If he didn't, he then is somehow immune from what he perceives and experiences. Rather than a refutation of us being our own creator, this punch in the stomach proves it even more so-- completely at the behest of that which we create. Are you arguing that we somehow live in a vacuum?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Forward, "...we will align with the powerful Light coming into the planet at this time and receive Divine Wisdom on how to let go of the past and stay in step with the rapid changes that are happening in our own lives and the world around us. The meeting starts with 11 min. of sacred sound and then prayers for healing the limiting patterns and old conditioning in our system and connecting with Divine Truth. Next we will receive the Divine Wisdom on how to stay in alignment and proceed with the most support and inner guidance as we cross the bridge into the New Life Mother Earth is embracing with us. You are a Divine Being in a physical form. You need to remember the way of life as a Divine Being. Tools and Techniques to create change will be given."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > possible. > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual possibility > though. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. Solipsism > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. > why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > possible. > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > possibility though. The point is that you can't rule it out, which is quite startling if you think about it, given that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions about how it all works. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. Solipsism > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > possible.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > possibility though. > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > is quite startling if you think about it, given > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > about how it all works. > pretty cool, huh?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > possibility though. > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > is quite startling if you think about it, given > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > about how it all works. I don't think we need to rule it out. Its use in philosophy is specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard it expressed as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary tale concerning epistemological inquiry. As you probably know it has a lot of implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of it makes sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be viewed as a profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its perspectives are used in a different way which takes it out of the context of its use in Western Philosophy. But if I wanted to discuss some of the concepts in this context I would drop the Western term entirely because I don't believe the concepts were built for that perspective as well as the Eastern concepts are on their own. But any discussion of whether there is really an "out there" out there beyond my perceptions goes over my head pretty fast. And I'm glad it does! > > > > It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. > > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. > Solipsism > > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It > is > > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of > thinking. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you?> That's what philosophical inquiry does. I think you are using this term in the context of Eastern philosophy where it is really a poor transplant as a concept IMO. You can use this term almost like poetry, but it was not meant as a perspective on our actual relationship with the world, only our epistemological confidence in our knowledge of it. It is seen as a pejorative in the context of psychology for good reason. This assumption can make a person non-functional in the world. I think by the time the concept is applied to descriptions of people who claim higher states of consciousness its usefulness is practically zero. The concept was not created for that purpose. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual possibility > > though. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math > used. > > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. > Solipsism > > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is > > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of > thinking. > > > why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > possible. > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > possibility though. > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > about how it all works. > > I don't think we need to rule it out. Its use in philosophy is > specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard it expressed > as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary tale concerning > epistemological inquiry. As you probably know it has a lot of > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of it makes > sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be viewed as a > profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its perspectives are > used in a different way which takes it out of the context of its use > in Western Philosophy. But if I wanted to discuss some of the > concepts in this context I would drop the Western term entirely > because I don't believe the concepts were built for that perspective > as well as the Eastern concepts are on their own. But any discussion > of whether there is really an "out there" out there beyond my > perceptions goes over my head pretty fast. And I'm glad it does! > I am a basically a slopisist-- not only do I question and deny an outer world and other minds, I have strong doubts about my own mind and senses -- cognitive error, biases, logical fallacy and all. Maybe its all Nothing percieving Nothing -- incorrectly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
"Developmental psychologists commonly believe that infants are solipsist, and that eventually children infer that others have experience much like theirs and reject solipsism. Solipsists assert that this rejection is not logically justified."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > possible. > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > possibility though. > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > about how it all works. > > I don't think we need to rule it out. That's lucky, because it can't be done. Its use in philosophy > is specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard > it expressed as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary > tale concerning epistemological inquiry. That's putting it mildly! As you probably know it has a lot of > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of > it makes sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be > viewed as a profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its > perspectives are used in a different way which takes it out of > the context of its use in Western Philosophy. Yeah, I'm just interested in how you deal with it in your Western context. Seems to me it's kinda the elephant in the room in terms of what it says about the nature of knowledge. It's like this huge edifice of epistemology is missing its foundation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > Can't speak for Curtis, but I've always noticed > > > that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus > > > cures most solipsists of their naive belief that > > > they create the universe all by themselves. It's > > > amazing how much one learns about interdependent > > > origination while gasping desperately for air. :-) > > > > Barry, this is way, *way* out of your league. > > No, it just settles the question instantly. > A solar plexus strike is good for that; just > out of the blue, no warning whatsoever, and > the budding solipsist can't breathe...the > nerve center controlling his diaphragm just > refuses to function. It does no permanent > harm, but for about a minute, minute and a > half, there is simply no possibility of him > believing that he is in control of his life > or that he creates everything in it. Hell, > he can't even create the ability to breathe. > > Solipsism is a pampered shut-in's belief > system. You can only believe in it if you > don't interact with the world much, and then > primarily in your imagination. Fairly well- > to-do, pampered people who have protected > themselves from the world around them ever > affecting them much can come to believe > that they "create" it. When did solipsists become creators? I thought they deny the existence of the outer world. Not that the created it. And even if the world should possibly exist, nothing certain can be known about it. Or communicated. And why would a punch to the SP falsify solipsism? Its just something that may not be real, and if it is, probably way misperceived. If you punch something wired way differently than humans, it may feel orgasmic. So there is nothing "absolute", no firm reference point for the punch. Its what it is. Different folks and things will perceive an know it to be something quite different from another. The punch is a "thing". (or not a thing). Sensation of the punch -- thats a way different an far more diverse thing. Like pain. Its just a friggin sensation. If you want to feel it as hurtful and bad -- be my guest. Isn't Byron Katie a bit of a solipsist? Can't be sure about anything, she suggests. If you can't know anything with certainty, how can you be absolutely positive that the world is as we see it. Or even exists? Or is not a shapeshifted giant breast? And if you can't know it, and can't know it exists, how the f can you communicate it? :) > But one quick shoto > strike to the solar plexus, and the truth of > interdependent origination is made clear. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you?> > > That's what philosophical inquiry does. I think you are using this > term in the context of Eastern philosophy where it is really a poor > transplant as a concept IMO. You can use this term almost like > poetry, but it was not meant as a perspective on our actual > relationship with the world, PDA (playing devils advocate) Does it matter what someone 200 or 2000 years ago thought was the significance of the concept? Perspectives change and grow (hopefully) over the ages. Should we have stopped the evolving conceptual net of quantum physics with Heisenberg? > only our epistemological confidence in > our knowledge of it. It is seen as a pejorative in the context of > psychology for good reason. This assumption can make a person > non-functional in the world. I suppose it might. As well as many other things. Is solipsism far more likely to do that than "other stuff"? > I think by the time the concept is > applied to descriptions of people who claim higher states of > consciousness its usefulness is practically zero. Zero as in the symbol of wholeness and infinity? kewl :) >The concept was not > created for that purpose. And that matters? SPAA (Same point as above). > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > possible. > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual possibility > > > though. It is more like talking with a physicist about the math > > used. > > > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. > > Solipsism > > > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It is > > > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of > > thinking. > > > > > why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you? > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > possible. > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > possibility though. > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > about how it all works. > > I don't think we need to rule it out. PDA. Thats a biased view, IMO. perhaps, standing at the foundational view (solipsism) we might entertain the idea of ruling some other things in. For a while. For our amusement. > Its use in philosophy is > specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard it expressed > as an ontological realty, I have. But maybe I misperceived them. Maybe they don't exist. Maybe ... > just as a cautionary tale concerning > epistemological inquiry. Sounds um dry to me. >As you probably know it has a lot of > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of it makes > sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be viewed as a > profound pathology. Why is that. Its the foundational view. Its the only thing we can be "sure" of. All else is speculation. That view seems massively healthy to me. Anything else (taken too seriously) I venture may be the pathological view. > In Eastern thought some of its perspectives are > used in a different way which takes it out of the context of its use > in Western Philosophy. An there is probably a Northern view. And a Southern View. You are sounding like a crass (false, but funny) imitation of Vaj -- no lineage, no tradition, the view must suck. > But if I wanted to discuss some of the > concepts in this context I would drop the Western term entirely > because I don't believe the concepts were built for that perspective Oh yes! We don't want those dead white men to roll over in their graves now do we. > as well as the Eastern concepts are on their own. But any discussion > of whether there is really an "out there" out there beyond my > perceptions goes over my head pretty fast. And I'm glad it does! The supreme laxative of philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. > > > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. > > Solipsism > > > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It > > is > > > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of > > thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > > > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > > > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > > > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > > > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > > > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > > > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > possible. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > why not slide down the slope? where would it lead you?> > > That's what philosophical inquiry does. I think you are using > this term in the context of Eastern philosophy where it is > really a poor transplant as a concept IMO. You can use this > term almost like poetry, but it was not meant as a perspective > on our actual relationship with the world, only our > epistemological confidence in our knowledge of it. It is seen > as a pejorative in the context of psychology for good reason. > This assumption can make a person non-functional in the world. > I think by the time the concept is applied to descriptions of > people who claim higher states of consciousness its usefulness > is practically zero. The concept was not created for that > purpose. Curtis, I seriously doubt it was "created for a purpose," i.e., by philosophers as a conceptual tool. It's the sort of thing any thoughtful person could come up with on their own and wonder about, and I'm sure many have. It doesn't have to have any reference to enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption even necessarily pathological. It doesn't have to change anything about how you interact with the world; it just changes your understanding of the meaning of "interact with the world."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
---Everybody knows that everything is inside the Mind of John Malkovich. See it for yourself: http://www.tinyurl.com/5fupne In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > > possibility though. > > > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > > about how it all works. > > > > I don't think we need to rule it out. > > PDA. Thats a biased view, IMO. perhaps, standing at the foundational > view (solipsism) we might entertain the idea of ruling some other > things in. For a while. For our amusement. > > > Its use in philosophy is > > specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard it expressed > > as an ontological realty, > > I have. But maybe I misperceived them. Maybe they don't exist. Maybe ... > > > just as a cautionary tale concerning > > epistemological inquiry. > > Sounds um dry to me. > > >As you probably know it has a lot of > > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of it makes > > sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be viewed as a > > profound pathology. > > Why is that. Its the foundational view. Its the only thing we can be > "sure" of. All else is speculation. That view seems massively healthy > to me. Anything else (taken too seriously) I venture may be the > pathological view. > > > In Eastern thought some of its perspectives are > > used in a different way which takes it out of the context of its use > > in Western Philosophy. > > An there is probably a Northern view. And a Southern View. You are > sounding like a crass (false, but funny) imitation of Vaj -- no > lineage, no tradition, the view must suck. > > > But if I wanted to discuss some of the > > concepts in this context I would drop the Western term entirely > > because I don't believe the concepts were built for that perspective > > Oh yes! We don't want those dead white men to roll over in their > graves now do we. > > > as well as the Eastern concepts are on their own. But any discussion > > of whether there is really an "out there" out there beyond my > > perceptions goes over my head pretty fast. And I'm glad it does! > > The supreme laxative of philosophy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is more like talking with a physicist about the math used. > > > > The math isn't an end in itself in the context of physics. > > > Solipsism > > > > was never championed by anyone as an explanation for our life. It > > > is > > > > more like the end of a slippery slope in a certain direction of > > > thinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't. It is an extreme philosophical position that is > > > > > > used as a thinking tool in philosophy. I can't think of a > > > > > > single great philosophical mind who proposed it as an actuality. > > > > > > But it is useful as a thought exercise. Guys like me, with > > > > > > barely enough mental dynamite to blow my nose, have more > > > > > > pragmatic issues to occupy my mind. I was only interested in > > > > > > this type of theoretical mental exercise in college. > > > > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > > possible. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't have to have any reference to > enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption > even necessarily pathological. It doesn't have to > change anything about how you interact with the > world; it just changes your understanding of the > meaning of "interact with the world." If there is a world. And a "you" / me. Maybe its all smoke and mirrors -- and we bought into it, and are now to vested in the delusion to give it up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
snip The concept was not created for that > > purpose. > > Curtis, I seriously doubt it was "created for a > purpose," i.e., by philosophers as a conceptual > tool. That sounds possible but its origin is presocratic so I don't know if we can get to the bottom of it. It's the sort of thing any thoughtful > person could come up with on their own and wonder > about, and I'm sure many have. It is a radical conceptual departure from our everyday experience. I think my characterization is accurate for how it is used in modern philosophy but I could be wrong. > > It doesn't have to have any reference to > enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption > even necessarily pathological. I agree as an intellectual assumption. In a case of pathology it would not be a pure intellectual version of the perspective anyway. But a person who believes that no one exists outside his own mental world may not be functional in the world which tends to deliver some concrete counterexamples. It doesn't have to > change anything about how you interact with the > world; it just changes your understanding of the > meaning of "interact with the world." > This is a cool point. I agree and acknowledge my limits in speculating at this level of abstraction. It is also why I have little interest in theoretical physics, I know my limitations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > > possibility though. > > > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > > about how it all works. > > > > I don't think we need to rule it out. > > That's lucky, because it can't be done. > > Its use in philosophy > > is specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard > > it expressed as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary > > tale concerning epistemological inquiry. > > That's putting it mildly! > > As you probably know it has a lot of > > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of > > it makes sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be > > viewed as a profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its > > perspectives are used in a different way which takes it out of > > the context of its use in Western Philosophy. > > Yeah, I'm just interested in how you deal with it > in your Western context. Seems to me it's kinda > the elephant in the room in terms of what it says > about the nature of knowledge. It's like this huge > edifice of epistemology is missing its foundation. > A-ha, the slippery slope again appears...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > It doesn't have to have any reference to > > enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption > > even necessarily pathological. It doesn't have to > > change anything about how you interact with the > > world; it just changes your understanding of the > > meaning of "interact with the world." > > If there is a world. And a "you" / me. > > Maybe its all smoke and mirrors -- and we bought into it, and are now > to vested in the delusion to give it up. Absolute skepticism has zero intellectual appeal for me. There is a lot of leeway in how we perceive our world, but I don't see the value in speculating that we aren't living in an objective physical world through the prisms of our individual intelligence and attempting to achieve some consensus. I also realize that theoretical physics type brainiacs need to think at this level of abstraction. My intellectual issues are very far down the ladder from this type of speculation. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't have to have any reference to > > > enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption > > > even necessarily pathological. It doesn't have to > > > change anything about how you interact with the > > > world; it just changes your understanding of the > > > meaning of "interact with the world." > > > > If there is a world. And a "you" / me. > > > > Maybe its all smoke and mirrors -- and we bought into it, and are now > > to vested in the delusion to give it up. > > Absolute skepticism has zero intellectual appeal for me. There is a > lot of leeway in how we perceive our world, but I don't see the value > in speculating that we aren't living in an objective physical world > through the prisms of our individual intelligence and attempting to > achieve some consensus. I also realize that theoretical physics type > brainiacs need to think at this level of abstraction. My intellectual > issues are very far down the ladder from this type of speculation. > It is interesting to me how my question about each of us being the creator of the world has morphed through subtle interpretation into equating creating with thinking. From what I can see, most creation in the universe occurs without any thinking at all; galaxies come and go, without any thinking at all. So why the assumption that in order to create, we must think? All the talk about solipsism has to do with filtering and interpreting our world through thought and thinking, and concepts and interpretation. I wasn't originally talking about that, though its been an interesting tangent nonetheless.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> Yeah, I'm just interested in how you deal with it > in your Western context. Seems to me it's kinda > the elephant in the room in terms of what it says > about the nature of knowledge. It's like this huge > edifice of epistemology is missing its foundation. > I forgot to comment on this point which I think is very important. I'll have to think about this more. I'm not sure that there is necessarily such lack of foundation in epistemology. Just because a theoretical "problem" can be expressed in language doesn't mean that it actually exists as a limitation in our ability to be confident of our thinking. I'm not sure that this is how recent philosophers approach this issue. In my quick Web search it seems that there are modern perspectives that I am unaware of. This has been a cool thread, thanks for keeping it going. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > > > possibility though. > > > > > > The point is that you can't rule it out, which > > > is quite startling if you think about it, given > > > that not-solipsism is so basic to our assumptions > > > about how it all works. > > > > I don't think we need to rule it out. > > That's lucky, because it can't be done. > > Its use in philosophy > > is specific to the branch it is used in, but I haven't heard > > it expressed as an ontological realty, just as a cautionary > > tale concerning epistemological inquiry. > > That's putting it mildly! > > As you probably know it has a lot of > > implications about the limits of human knowledge and some of > > it makes sense to me. As a psychological condition it would be > > viewed as a profound pathology. In Eastern thought some of its > > perspectives are used in a different way which takes it out of > > the context of its use in Western Philosophy. > > Yeah, I'm just interested in how you deal with it > in your Western context. Seems to me it's kinda > the elephant in the room in terms of what it says > about the nature of knowledge. It's like this huge > edifice of epistemology is missing its foundation. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > snip The concept was not created for that > > > purpose. > > > > Curtis, I seriously doubt it was "created for a > > purpose," i.e., by philosophers as a conceptual > > tool. > > That sounds possible but its origin is presocratic so I > don't know if we can get to the bottom of it. Even if some presocratic philosophers came up with it one night in a deep discussion and decided it was a useful conceptual tool, what I'm suggesting is that it's the sort of thing that might occur to anybody who tended toward introspection, whether they'd ever had any contact with philosophy or not. > It is a radical conceptual departure from our everyday > experience. I'd say it's a radical conceptual departure from how we've been trained to think about our everyday experience. There isn't anything in our experience *per se* that actually privileges one interpretation over the other. > It doesn't have to > > change anything about how you interact with the > > world; it just changes your understanding of the > > meaning of "interact with the world." > > This is a cool point. I agree and acknowledge my limits > in speculating at this level of abstraction. It is also > why I have little interest in theoretical physics, I know > my limitations. Oh, pooh. Your limitations are where you draw them. I have no idea how the notion might be useful. It just seems to me it's a mistake to invest everything in the Standard View when there's no way of proving it, or of disproving solipsism. If you leave the door open a crack, maybe take a peek through from time to time, you might one day see something interesting. So I was just throwing it out there for the heck of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
If you leave the > door open a crack, maybe take a peek through from > time to time, you might one day see something > interesting. So I was just throwing it out there for > the heck of it. It definitely launched me into a level of conceptual thinking that I don't often hang out in. A much appreciated mental goosing! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > snip The concept was not created for that > > > > purpose. > > > > > > Curtis, I seriously doubt it was "created for a > > > purpose," i.e., by philosophers as a conceptual > > > tool. > > > > That sounds possible but its origin is presocratic so I > > don't know if we can get to the bottom of it. > > Even if some presocratic philosophers came up > with it one night in a deep discussion and > decided it was a useful conceptual tool, what > I'm suggesting is that it's the sort of thing > that might occur to anybody who tended toward > introspection, whether they'd ever had any > contact with philosophy or not. > > > > It is a radical conceptual departure from our everyday > > experience. > > I'd say it's a radical conceptual departure from > how we've been trained to think about our > everyday experience. There isn't anything in our > experience *per se* that actually privileges one > interpretation over the other. > > > > It doesn't have to > > > change anything about how you interact with the > > > world; it just changes your understanding of the > > > meaning of "interact with the world." > > > > This is a cool point. I agree and acknowledge my limits > > in speculating at this level of abstraction. It is also > > why I have little interest in theoretical physics, I know > > my limitations. > > Oh, pooh. Your limitations are where you draw them. > > I have no idea how the notion might be useful. It > just seems to me it's a mistake to invest everything > in the Standard View when there's no way of proving > it, or of disproving solipsism. If you leave the > door open a crack, maybe take a peek through from > time to time, you might one day see something > interesting. So I was just throwing it out there for > the heck of it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > possible. > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > possibility though. It is more like talking with a physicist > about the math used. The math isn't an end in itself in the > context of physics. Solipsism was never championed by anyone > as an explanation for our life. It is more like the end of a > slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. Yup. I still like my punch-em-in-the-solar- plexus approach to solipsists. "Theoretically" is another way of saying, "If the universe worked the way I'd like it to..." Why get involved with that level of egoidiocy? Better to leave them sitting on the ground gasping for breath and wondering how they ever thought *that* one up IMO. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html Nicely put, but I still like my theory of just punching the solipsist in the solar plexus. You don't have to put up with nearly as much self importance, and you can get back to enjoying the mystery of creation *so* much faster than actually arguing with a self that believes that only it exists, simply because it capitalizes the word Self. All theoretical arguments should start with the words, "Pretend for a moment that reality doesn't exist..." No thanks. I prefer cele- brating its existence and its mystery, and I've got no time for selves that are so afraid of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality that they have come to believe that they created it. I come from a *much* more pragmatic school of self discovery than most TMers do. We all had to be black belts or working on it. We all had to earn our own way in life; anyone who had managed to talk someone else into paying for his sadhana or subsidizing his ability to "go on courses" would have been laughed out of the study in a heartbeat. The measure of a philo- sophical POV was whether it *worked*, to benefit the individual and others around him equally. If it *didn't* work, and had no effect on the world, that POV was viewed as what it was, just so much mental masturbation. You'll have to forgive me if my personal approach has degenerated to believing that it's far prefer- able to jab a person in the solar plexus and thus possibly give them something they can ponder and learn from than to just stand around watching them whack off, expecting those around them to see that furious pounding as an act of cosmic creation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
"Despite the out and out weirdness of these events, I must say without any irony that the citizens of Fairfield are seriously on to something. Not only did these people know how to have a good time, but they were some of the nicest, smartest, and most vibrant folks I've met in a very long time. And whether or not it has anything to do with Transcendental Meditation, an outsize portion of them just happened to be conspicuously good looking. Deserving of further investigation? I think so. Thank you, universe, for allowing us to get to Fairfield. Something tells me the journey has only just begun... --DARON MURPHY" http://www.mensvogue.com/magazine/blogs/daily > > Forward, > "...we will align with the powerful Light coming into the planet at > this time and receive Divine Wisdom on how to let go of the past and > stay in step with the rapid changes that are happening in our own lives > and the world around us. > > The meeting starts with 11 min. of sacred sound and then prayers for > healing the limiting patterns and old conditioning in our system and > connecting with Divine Truth. Next we will receive the Divine Wisdom on > how to stay in alignment and proceed with the most support and inner > guidance as we cross the bridge into the New Life Mother Earth is > embracing with us. > > You are a Divine Being in a physical form. You need to remember the way > of life as a Divine Being. Tools and Techniques to create change will > be given." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html > > > Nicely put, but I still like my theory of > just punching the solipsist in the solar > plexus. You don't have to put up with nearly > as much self importance, and you can get back > to enjoying the mystery of creation *so* much > faster than actually arguing with a self that > believes that only it exists, simply because > it capitalizes the word Self. > > All theoretical arguments should start with > the words, "Pretend for a moment that reality > doesn't exist..." No thanks. I prefer cele- > brating its existence and its mystery, and > I've got no time for selves that are so afraid > of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality > that they have come to believe that they created > it. Your presentation presents a good example of why solipsism may be an insightful POV. You present a character (writing a play?) that appears so wrapped up in false notions, and baseless constructs, that his view actually appears to him as tangible reality. When indeed the foundation of such, is apparent to be vacuuous -- a vast regress of reflections, of false notions spinning out their little world, providing "juice" and foundation for more regress. IF there is a fundamental mistakes "of the intellect", an early buying into the standard view, then our notion of reality could feasibly be sand castles in the air. It all looks solid 500 layers above the "abyss", one falsehood layered upon another, feeding each other, -- but it may come crashing down when the foundations are examined. Why your character believes that a solipsist cannot celebrate all that stretches across the universe, adds texture to those seemingly intractable layers of smoke and mirrors. It certainly is plausible that real joy, real celebration cannot an does not occur until the foundations are seen for what they are and all is enjoyed and celebrated as "intimate", as intimate as ones (focused) notion of ones' self. And the deeper unrecognized paradox of your character -- that a solipsist creates his universe (a false notion)-- and yet is incapable of enjoying or celebrating it. And the response of this tangled mass is almost Bushian -- to strike out, hard and fast, with "shock and awe" at anything that differs from his own cozy world that IS a product of himself -- that he has created. The character is actually a solipsist of sorts -- per this characters false definition -- he has created his own world -- and like a fish in water, has no concept of water -- that is of anything outside of his little pond. Thanks for the great example. Its brilliant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > > > > > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > > > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > > > > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html > > > > Nicely put, but I still like my theory of > > just punching the solipsist in the solar > > plexus. You don't have to put up with nearly > > as much self importance, and you can get back > > to enjoying the mystery of creation *so* much > > faster than actually arguing with a self that > > believes that only it exists, simply because > > it capitalizes the word Self. > > > > All theoretical arguments should start with > > the words, "Pretend for a moment that reality > > doesn't exist..." No thanks. I prefer cele- > > brating its existence and its mystery, and > > I've got no time for selves that are so afraid > > of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality > > that they have come to believe that they created > > it. > > Your presentation presents a good example of why solipsism may be an > insightful POV. You present a character (writing a play?) that appears > so wrapped up in false notions, and baseless constructs, that his view > actually appears to him as tangible reality. When indeed the > foundation of such, is apparent to be vacuuous -- a vast regress of > reflections, of false notions spinning out their little world, > providing "juice" and foundation for more regress. > > IF there is a fundamental mistakes "of the intellect", an early buying > into the standard view, then our notion of reality could feasibly be > sand castles in the air. It all looks solid 500 layers above the > "abyss", one falsehood layered upon another, feeding each other, -- > but it may come crashing down when the foundations are examined. > > Why your character believes that a solipsist cannot celebrate all that > stretches across the universe, adds texture to those seemingly > intractable layers of smoke and mirrors. It certainly is plausible > that real joy, real celebration cannot an does not occur until the > foundations are seen for what they are and all is enjoyed and > celebrated as "intimate", as intimate as ones (focused) notion of > ones' self. > > And the deeper unrecognized paradox of your character -- that a > solipsist creates his universe (a false notion)-- and yet is incapable > of enjoying or celebrating it. And the response of this tangled mass > is almost Bushian -- to strike out, hard and fast, with "shock and > awe" at anything that differs from his own cozy world that IS a > product of himself -- that he has created. The character is actually a > solipsist of sorts -- per this characters false definition -- he has > created his own world -- and like a fish in water, has no concept of > water -- that is of anything outside of his little pond. > > Thanks for the great example. Its brilliant. It wasn't really that brilliant. I just woke up with a perverse desire to see whose buttons get easily pushed on this subject when its validity is challenged. Thanks for playing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html He draws a logical conclusion: "How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its common-sense rival, realism? The difference is based on no more than a renaming scheme." Which is similar to what I said to Curtis in a subsequent post: Solipsism doesn't have to change anything about how you interact with the world; it just changes your understanding of the meaning of "interact with the world" (what Deutsch calls a "renaming scheme"). But then he says: "Thus solipsism, far from being a world-view stripped to its essentials, is actually just realism disguised and weighed down by additional unnecessary assumptions -- worthless baggage, introduced only to be explained away." He's essentially demostrated that there's no way to tell whether realism or solipsism is "true," and he concludes that it's therefore a meaningless question, because everything looks and behaves the same either way. But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't tell, that we can never know the most fundamental fact of ontology.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It wasn't really that brilliant. I just woke > up with a perverse desire to see whose buttons > get easily pushed on this subject when its > validity is challenged. Thanks for playing. Hey, that's your standard state of being. It's old news, not some new impulse. You go to sleep with it and you wake up with it. And you've designed the game so that in your own mind, you always win. There *are* other games. Maybe one day you'll get bored with this one and decide to explore a different one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
Doug wrote: > "We're going to talk about parallel reality... > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175630 Duveyoung wrote: > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here > > has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita > > enough to know what it is enough to accept > > or reject it. > > Turq wrote: > It wasn't really that brilliant. > Well, yes. But the funniest thing to me is that in this thread nobody even mentioned the central doctrine of Adwaita. Maybe Edg was right - nobody here groks Adwaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject it. Go figure. "Ajativada or the doctrine of no-origination, is the fundamental doctrine of Gaudapaada." Read more: Gaudapada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada Frankly I'm surprised that Judy didn't chime in, since not too long ago Judy and John were both real big on Nagarjuna's Four Negations. LOL!!! Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental From: John Manning Date: Mon, Feb 7 2005 10:26 am Subject: Nagarjuna's Four Negations http://tinyurl.com/4ggkow Nagarjuna's Four Negations: Brahman is not the relative. Brahman is not the Absolute. Brahman is not the relative *and* the Absolute. Brahman is not *neither* the relative *nor* the Absolute. Here's my attempted view: Brahman is the *Only* - It moves as Itself Just a try. [thnx to JS for the quote]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the great example. Its brilliant. > > It wasn't really that brilliant. I just woke > up with a perverse desire to see whose buttons > get easily pushed on this subject when its > validity is challenged. Thanks for playing. Interestinjg POV -- that someone with a different POV is solely reacting to having their buttons pushed. Jai Carl. (And just think. YOU created your own little universe. You created the buttons, you pushed the buttons, and you created an interpretation of the response that "resonates with you" -- and affirms possible confirmation bias. hmm -- a non-solipsist creator of their own world. Nice POV. Brilliant.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > "We're going to talk about parallel reality... > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175630 > > Duveyoung wrote: > > > The funniest thing to me is that no one here > > > has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita > > > enough to know what it is enough to accept > > > or reject it. > > > > Turq wrote: > > It wasn't really that brilliant. > > > Well, yes. But the funniest thing to me is that > in this thread nobody even mentioned the central > doctrine of Adwaita. Perhaps if we viewed Adwata as a necessary or paramount POV we would be all over it. >Maybe Edg was right - nobody > here groks Adwaita enough to know what it is > enough to accept or reject it. Go figure. Yes. You are a brilliant, misunderstood and under appreciated vedic scholar.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got no time for selves that are so afraid > of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality > that they have come to believe that they created > it. Oops, no. It's just as joyfully unknowable with solipsism as with realism. > You'll have to forgive me if my personal approach > has degenerated to believing that it's far prefer- > able to jab a person in the solar plexus and thus > possibly give them something they can ponder and > learn from than to just stand around watching them > whack off, expecting those around them to see that > furious pounding as an act of cosmic creation. In the first place, the solar plexus tactic doesn't work as you think it does. In the second place, it doesn't work because you don't understand what the premise of solipsism implies (see above, e.g.). And in the third place, the interesting point isn't whether solipsism is true, it's that there's no way to know whether it's true. As you noted sometime back, "If you scratch the surface of a habitual skeptic about one system, what you just might find is a prosyletute for another system." And: "In general I am trying to rid myself of assumptions about the universe, not preserve them." And: "Every time the self 'wins' -- proves itself 'correct' in what its assumptions are about the universe -- that self becomes stronger, more likely to espouse 'correct' or 'right' assumptions in the future. And less likely to relinquish control to Self." Lots of others along the same lines. Why not take your own advice and enjoy the ambiguity and unknowability, instead of fantasizing about punching imaginary people in the solar plexus to prove them "wrong"?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> > Maybe Edg was right - nobody here groks > > Adwaita enough to know what it is enough > > to accept or reject it. Go figure. > > > Yes. You are a brilliant, misunderstood and > under appreciated vedic scholar. > Do the Vedas have anything to say about Adwaita? >From what I've read, you'd be hard pressed to find anything about Adwaita in the Upanishads or the Gita. So, even if I was a Vedic scholar, I wouldn't be able to point out much. Apparently the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana don't even have much to say about Adwaita. So, I guess we'd have to be looking elsewhere for the origins of non-dualism, would we not?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Are you taking the position of solipsism? > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism? > > > > This is from one of my favourite books, The Fabric of Reality > > by David Deutsch. He puts it better than I ever could. > > > > http://www.freivald.org/~jake/deutschOnSolipsism.html > > He draws a logical conclusion: > > "How exactly does solipsism, taken seriously, differ from its > common-sense rival, realism? The difference is based on no more > than a renaming scheme." > > Which is similar to what I said to Curtis in a > subsequent post: Solipsism doesn't have to change > anything about how you interact with the world; > it just changes your understanding of the meaning > of "interact with the world" (what Deutsch calls > a "renaming scheme"). > > But then he says: > > "Thus solipsism, far from being a world-view stripped to its > essentials, is actually just realism disguised and weighed > down by additional unnecessary assumptions -- worthless > baggage, introduced only to be explained away." > > He's essentially demostrated that there's no way > to tell whether realism or solipsism is "true," and > he concludes that it's therefore a meaningless > question, because everything looks and behaves the > same either way. > Actually he demonstrates that solipsism self destructs as an idea through adding so much complexity: "Solipsism insists on referring to objectively different things (such as external reality and my unconscious mind, or introspection and scientific observation) by the same names. But then it has to reintroduce the distinction through explanations in terms of something like the 'outer part of myself'. But no such extra explanations would be necessary without its insistence on an inexplicable renaming scheme." > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > fact of ontology. > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, why weigh down observable reality with an invented version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of us are wrong. I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming you and everyone else is actually here and not part of my daydreams.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > fact of ontology. > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > us are wrong. Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* disprove either solipsism or realism. I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > my daydreams. As long as you realize it's only an assumption...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > This point really speaks to the problem I have with the claims of complete knowledge in Eastern philosophy. The higher states model lacks what I consider the appropriate human condition epistemological humility about what we know. Since I haven't seen any evidence of someone possessing super knowledge skills among those claimed to be in higher states, their claims of states of complete knowledge seem inflated and bogus. By repeating Vedic phrases as if this represents the highest form of human knowledge, they exhibit the same blind reliance on the authority of scripture as Kentucky snake handlers. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > fact of ontology. > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > us are wrong. > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > my daydreams. > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > This point really speaks to the problem I have with the claims of > complete knowledge in Eastern philosophy. ??? Where was I making claims of complete knowledge for Eastern philosophy? The higher states model > lacks what I consider the appropriate human condition epistemological > humility about what we know. Since I haven't seen any evidence of > someone possessing super knowledge skills among those claimed to be in > higher states, their claims of states of complete knowledge seem > inflated and bogus. By repeating Vedic phrases as if this represents > the highest form of human knowledge, they exhibit the same blind > reliance on the authority of scripture as Kentucky snake handlers. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > > fact of ontology. > > > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > > us are wrong. > > > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > > my daydreams. > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > > > This point really speaks to the problem I have with the claims of > > complete knowledge in Eastern philosophy. > > ??? Where was I making claims of complete knowledge for > Eastern philosophy? I was contrasting your own humbling description of the human condition in knowledge with that of Eastern philosophy's claims. I don't lump you in with the snake handlers Judy! > > > The higher states model > > lacks what I consider the appropriate human condition > epistemological > > humility about what we know. Since I haven't seen any evidence of > > someone possessing super knowledge skills among those claimed to be > in > > higher states, their claims of states of complete knowledge seem > > inflated and bogus. By repeating Vedic phrases as if this > represents > > the highest form of human knowledge, they exhibit the same blind > > reliance on the authority of scripture as Kentucky snake > handlers. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > > > fact of ontology. > > > > > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > > > > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > > > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > > > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > > > us are wrong. > > > > > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > > > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > > > > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > > > my daydreams. > > > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > fact of ontology. > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > us are wrong. > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > my daydreams. > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > and the point really isn't "is it real or a daydream?"-- that polarizes the choices and makes the choice obvious, even to a child. Rather the point is, you are real and have attributes that I observe, and my observation of you is guided by my perception. In other words I will see you differently, even by some miniscule fraction, than the next person will. Therefore, there is no way to account for these differences in perception unless I am actually creating you. How could it be any differently?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
I am still wrestling with how you are using the word "create" Jim. If you mean that you are creating your own perspective or impression of a person inside your own mind then I understand. People's different perspectives on another person are easy to account for without claiming to "create" the person, right? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > wrote: > > > > > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether* > > > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't > > > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental > > > > fact of ontology. > > > > > > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor, > > > why weigh down observable reality with an invented > > > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be? > > > > But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more > > likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true. > > > > > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to > > > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of > > > us are wrong. > > > > Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor* > > disprove either solipsism or realism. > > > > I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming > > > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of > > > my daydreams. > > > > As long as you realize it's only an assumption... > > > and the point really isn't "is it real or a daydream?"-- that > polarizes the choices and makes the choice obvious, even to a child. > Rather the point is, you are real and have attributes that I > observe, and my observation of you is guided by my perception. In > other words I will see you differently, even by some miniscule > fraction, than the next person will. Therefore, there is no way to > account for these differences in perception unless I am actually > creating you. How could it be any differently? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. > > > > I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual > > possibility though. It is more like talking with a physicist > > about the math used. The math isn't an end in itself in the > > context of physics. Solipsism was never championed by anyone > > as an explanation for our life. It is more like the end of a > > slippery slope in a certain direction of thinking. > > Yup. I still like my punch-em-in-the-solar- > plexus approach to solipsists. "Theoretically" > is another way of saying, "If the universe > worked the way I'd like it to..." Why get > involved with that level of egoidiocy? Better > to leave them sitting on the ground gasping > for breath and wondering how they ever thought > *that* one up IMO. :-) > Being the creator of your own universe has nothing at all to do with creating your own little "happybubble" as you think it does. You read these words or any others, and form opinions, which are subtly different than anyone else's opinions, just like everything else you perceive. This is one proof that you create your own universe, and I mine, etc. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to struggle at all to understand one another, nor would anyone disagree, ever. Your position argues for isolation and conformity, not the other way 'round. Your position that we co-create the universe, or even this moment together presupposes that you know what this moment is like for me. But you don't, and vice versa. That is because I experience this moment from my unique perspective, as it unfolds, to me, and you do the same. In other words, you create your universe, and I create mine. Everything else is just consensus, a tool, a convenience. But to assume that you perceive things the same way I do is way off, in my opinion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > account for these differences in perception unless I am actually > creating you. How could it be any differently?> > > I am still wrestling with how you are using the word "create" Jim. If > you mean that you are creating your own perspective or impression of a > person inside your own mind then I understand. People's different > perspectives on another person are easy to account for without > claiming to "create" the person, right? > (Thanks for sticking with this-- Its a lot of fun...) "If you mean that you are creating your own perspective or impression of a person inside your own mind then I understand." Great-- so from your perspective, that is all you know. Even if I were to tell you everything I believed about myself, you would still create me for yourself; as you perceive me. We may think that there is a difference between the other person we perceive, and who that person *really* is, but there isn't. How could there be?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
> (Thanks for sticking with this-- Its a lot of fun...) > "If you mean that you are creating your own perspective or > impression of a person inside your own mind then I understand." > Great-- so from your perspective, that is all you know. Even if I > were to tell you everything I believed about myself, you would still > create me for yourself; as you perceive me. We may think that there > is a difference between the other person we perceive, and who that > person *really* is, but there isn't. How could there be? We could be wrong about the person. We could misperceive. A phrase "like who that person really is" may not have one answer for a system as complex as a human. There could be a lot of descriptions that could equally fit but be quite different. I can't get out of my own perceptual position with its inherent limits to know about you. I use those limits to make sense of the world as best as I can. I'm still not getting your overall point. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > > account for these differences in perception unless I am actually > > creating you. How could it be any differently?> > > > > I am still wrestling with how you are using the word "create" > Jim. If > > you mean that you are creating your own perspective or impression > of a > > person inside your own mind then I understand. People's different > > perspectives on another person are easy to account for without > > claiming to "create" the person, right? > > > (Thanks for sticking with this-- Its a lot of fun...) > "If you mean that you are creating your own perspective or > impression of a person inside your own mind then I understand." > Great-- so from your perspective, that is all you know. Even if I > were to tell you everything I believed about myself, you would still > create me for yourself; as you perceive me. We may think that there > is a difference between the other person we perceive, and who that > person *really* is, but there isn't. How could there be? >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How could it be any differently? Dear sandiego108 - I hail you as one of those true spirits of life that enjoy to uphold the happy and positive sentiments amongst those whose hearts are sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0c05ccqK0&feature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (Thanks for sticking with this-- Its a lot of fun...) > > "If you mean that you are creating your own perspective or > > impression of a person inside your own mind then I understand." > > Great-- so from your perspective, that is all you know. Even if I > > were to tell you everything I believed about myself, you would still > > create me for yourself; as you perceive me. We may think that there > > is a difference between the other person we perceive, and who that > > person *really* is, but there isn't. How could there be? > > > We could be wrong about the person. We could misperceive. A phrase > "like who that person really is" may not have one answer for a system > as complex as a human. There could be a lot of descriptions that > could equally fit but be quite different. Exactly, each created by a different perceiver. There is no "real person", or alternatively, there are an infinite number of components to the "real person". So many as to render a definitive "real person" meaningless. > I can't get out of my own perceptual position with its inherent limits > to know about you. I use those limits to make sense of the world as > best as I can. I'm still not getting your overall point. > Just that the idea that we only perceive part of the world around us is a fallacy. What we create through our perception is exactly what the universe consists of, that we create. Our universe. With all of its limitations. Its really quite a simple notion, with all kinds of fascinating derivatives. It is comforting to think that we are no longer living in our childhood home, it continues to exist, for example. But unless we take someone's word for it, or actually see it, for all practical purposes, it doesn't. It absolutely vanishes from our universe, no longer part of our creation. Like anything else we don't perceive directly. I am not positing some sci fi reality where stuff pops in and out of existence depending on whether we are perceiving it directly or not, though given the evidence in front of us, and limited by our senses, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [I wrote: > > > It's just that you can't really settle the > > > pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically > > > possible. > Yup. I still like my punch-em-in-the-solar- > plexus approach to solipsists. "Theoretically" > is another way of saying, "If the universe > worked the way I'd like it to..." Wow. I didn't notice this until Jim quoted it just now. It's not true in general, nor is it true for me with regard to solipsism. What Barry means is that he doesn't like to have to contemplate even the theoretical possibility that the universe *doesn't* work the way *he'd* like it to. The very thought is so abhorrent to him that he'd leave anybody he thought believed it-- > sitting on the ground gasping for breath and > wondering how they ever thought *that* one up > IMO. :-) That's the way Barry would prefer to settle metaphysical disagreements: with violence. And look how much he enjoys the fantasy. Just in the past two days: "I've always noticed that a good surprise punch in the solar plexus cures most solipsists of their naive belief that they create the universe all by themselves." (BTW, Barry has never actually met a solipsist, let alone punched one in the solar plexus.) "A solar plexus strike is good for that; just out of the blue, no warning whatsoever, and the budding solipsist can't breathe..." "But one quick shoto strike to the solar plexus, and the truth of interdependent origination is made clear. :-)" "I still like my theory of just punching the solipsist in the solar plexus." (In other words, if the universe worked the way Barry would like it to.) "It's far preferable to jab a person in the solar plexus..." Anybody think Barry's struggling with some anger issues?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Notes from Satsang Fairfield
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > wrote: > > >How could it be any differently? > > > Dear sandiego108 - I hail you as one of those true spirits of life that > enjoy to uphold the happy and positive sentiments amongst those whose > hearts are sad. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a0c05ccqK0&feature=related > I know you love Maharishi, so I'll refer to his words: "The science of Being and the art of living."
