Someone explain this to me

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0

Fallacious.

There is still an inside and outside, just a strange border creating it.

Further, no matter how the paper is folded, there remains the atoms creating the paper and the atoms creating the space around the paper - thus again an inside and outside.

Nothing can exist without something else defining its structure.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
It is because reality is Sunyata, nothingness.

By clinging to anything, we solidify the belief in its being real.
Oy! Maybe you are better off as a "brain in a jar" solipsist! **facepalm**



Emptiness is a word, subject to perception.

The pointer is not the real thing.
OK.



I do not understand how this relates.
Give it some non-existent time to sink in.

You describe an objective observation to show that an observer is not necessary.

Can you prove anything has happened without experiencing it?

You can only infer.
How can you prove that an observer is necessary?



It depends on the perceiver of it, thus is unreal.
It still has an effect. What do you call an effect without a cause?
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Fallacious.

There is still an inside and outside, just a strange border creating it.

Further, no matter how the paper is folded, there remains the atoms creating the paper and the atoms creating the space around the paper - thus again an inside and outside.
OK, I see where you are coming from now.
Nothing can exist without something else defining its structure.
Are you saying that existence is dependent on form?
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Oy! Maybe you are better off as a "brain in a jar" solipsist! **facepalm**

Why define anything?

That is the whole problem, part of the definition for you includes a judgement, which echoes whether or not you want to look at this idea.

I have already said why solipsism is based on a false premise, it insists mind itself is not a construct.

How can you prove that an observer is necessary?

Find something real that is not the result of observation.

It still has an effect. What do you call an effect without a cause?

Life.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Are you saying that existence is dependent on form?

I do not appreciate when you change my words, I said structure for a reason.

Energy is an example of something without form, yet exists. How do we know it exists? It is because its behavior is predictable, thus consists of something capable of responding to circumstance, thus has some structure.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
I do not appreciate when you change my words, I said structure for a reason.

Energy is an example of something without form, yet exists. How do we know it exists? It is because its behavior is predictable, thus consists of something capable of responding to circumstance, thus has some structure.
Ahh, but energy does have form. Waveform of electromagnetic energy is one example.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Ahh, but energy does have form. Waveform of electromagnetic energy is one example.

If we want to define this as form, then yes, I am saying that existence is dependent on form.

Is it possible to say that sunyata or brahman, emptiness or void, exists?

Not without a contrast.

Existence and form both require an observer.

Else nothing is.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I personally prefer the hindus "void" since it does not so easily correlate to what we already perceive.

When most think "empty" they think in terms of an empty room.

Void is simply absence of everything.

Absence of emptiness or fullness, absence of perceiver or perception.

This is what people extrapolate from, what is called Samadhi, which is like deep sleep but differs in that it renews far more, you are more energetic and euphoric when you return to conscious-awareness.

Clinging to Samadhi is already a mistake though, yet all spiritual traditions confer from samadhi how to behave when consciousness is there. For me, it is better to let people extrapolate themselves, rather than teach morals and ethics, but this creates the problem of how to create the conditions to enter the state.

This is my interest on talking about this, but you present the problem: trying to communicate only brings more ideas and beliefs for the mind, or creates hostility because the mind already thinks things are another way.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The fear is disillusionment.

We take this as a giving up, it is the cause of depression in many.

Yet, constantly, we are instructed by masters "Let go!".

When mind has nothing to cling to, it comes to rest.

Considering deeply the dependent origination of all things, the interdependence of all opposites in creating an experience, and seriously questioning this perceiver which claims to be experiencing it, samadhi will happen.

Letting go even of samadhi, seeing it is another part of the story, ego cannot cling to this either.

Identifications simply dissolve.

Truth remains.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Disillusionment is not bad.

It means the removal of illusions, it is to question maya.

Mind dislikes it because without illusions mind cannot survive.

Clinging to any thought feeds the mind, keeps it churning.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I think that understand deep sleep is very important when asking what is truth.

Consciousness, the waking mind, has dissolved, there are no images in the mind, no dreaming. The perceiver has fallen, and so nothing is perceived.

We overlook this, and only acknowledge that time in which we are awake, so we assume these identifications are valid and real. None of these exist, no relation, no friends, no responsibilities, nothing exists at all in deep sleep. There is no "I", there is only void.

Then we wake up and pick the story back up where we left off.

Deep sleep can give a hint at samadhi, it can give a hint to death, and it can give a hint to truth.

Of course, without looking at all aspects of our existence, by choosing only that time in which we are conscious, deciding to emphasize particular appearances in consciousness, we are bound to be ignorant. We fail to acknowledge that consciousness itself is impermanent.

In deep sleep, things can wake us up, there remains a subtle awareness. Here it differs from samadhi and obviously also death, for even awareness itself is secondary. The greatest fear in man is that he will not exist one day, the spiritual path shows you do not even exist now.

How to fear some far off idea when you know it is constantly the case?

All that remains is the clinging to appearances, but they are similarly just something in consciousness, none of them are there in even deep sleep.

The only way to overcome fear is to face it directly.

Believing in an afterlife is a false comfort, there is no afterlife because there is not really even a life.

Mind - consciousness - is the basis for all experiences, it is not even constant now though, yet it is why we fear death. We cling to experiencing, we like feeling we are something.

This is the illusion.

We want truth to be something, we want it to give meaning, it never will.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Afterlife is simply to convince the mind there is something to experience once experiencing ceases.

It is absurd, experiencing is not even constant during what we call life.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I want also to say that your Upekkha is exactly what is meant by bliss.

In Hinduism, the absolute is said to be satchitanand - truth, consciousness, bliss.

Bliss means contentment, it is a still mind.

You cannot live from samadhi, you cannot live from nirvana, you must either die completely or return to this shore.

The mind which is not agitated, which is not attached to appearances, yet is compassionate, loving, this is bliss.

It might not be the ultimate, that is death, but it is the result of all aspirations being completed, dropped.

It is happiness, without any object, it is well being, it is fulfilment.

Of course it is still part of the illusion, but what is not?

Why not make your illusion joyful rather than dull?

Of course there is no choice to make, without creating any problem, any disturbance, this is the closest word there is in English to say what remains. It takes great effort to be miserable, you have to constantly remind yourself, you have to become utterly stuck in a negative thought. Ecstasy is found when we become stuck on positive thoughts, but then great effort must again be put into retaining it. Bliss is the natural state of a peaceful mind, it is the closest we come to saying what is love without an object, and what is silence in action.

I hope one day you will stop insisting bliss is not the goal.

If bliss is not the goal, life cannot be enjoyed, the only option is death.

Bliss is not truth, it is the natural state without fallacy.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Bliss and equanimity are essentially the same, but your preference is for the latter.

I go on saying the former because this is what many of my teachers have called it. You essentially reject it on semantics, I dislike using foreign words to say these things to people because my language is English. Buddha has called his leading disciple Ananda, clearly he had no qualms against the word.

Yet it is now 2-3 times you have insisted this point, that bliss is not the goal.

The very point is that this is the result of all goals falling away, with a goal your mind will not be content, there can be no equanimity for the busy mind. It is perfectly right, then to say it is not the goal, it is more the result of accomplishing it. Of course, it becomes very easy to understand why many spiritual seekers commit suicide, it is easy to understand why Mahavira has starved himself to death, there is simply nothing to do now... being ok with this is bliss.

The suicidal seeker has seen all is pointless and taken this to the extreme, Mahavira has taken the opposite. He has seen that consuming anything is violence against the whole, and out of compassion has refused to commit any violence - only life sustains life, how to position your life over any other? He has gone to the extreme of vegetarianism, veganism, for even the fruit holds a seed which contains life, even the nut can become a live tree. Many simply have no desire to do anything, Maharshi Ramana only survived because a young woman fed him and groomed him, else he too would have died due to inactivity of the mind. It takes a long time to come from this height back to a state where you can function again with the body, with other people, it becomes quite confusing for a time. There is simply total lack of desire, even the basics are no more given attention.

Eventually, you acclimatize to this and stay to assist others, if you see this is pointless, there is very little motivation even to remain in this place. You want to share, but you can see in each that they already have it, they are just not looking. There is nothing even wrong in this, it is almost more masterful, to forget so completely, to be so far from what you are. It is beautiful, the multitude of expressions. It only hurts to see others suffer, because their suffering is based only on their imagination. Why choose something negative?
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Of course, there is not really choice.

Free will and predestination are both false though, for both rest on the concept of choice.

Choice is only the commentary of the mind, because there seems to be options, the mind considers them, but it has no bearing on what follows. Yet, predestination is also false, for it suggests there is a particular end to all that is happening. As I have already said, there is nothing happening, it is all just appearances in consciousness.

Choosing creates the sense of a personal will, predestination suggests something else plotting your course. It creates the notion that everything is happening for a reason, but for what reason does the river flow towards the ocean? There is no reason, it is just its nature. All things flow by the path of least resistance, so too are our apparent choices.

I am sure all have had the experience of choosing, then doing something which was not that choice instead, this shows that the choosing process is imagined.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
What value is there in your knowledge though?
Ask yourself what value truth has over illusion.

For me, Christians today are as the priests that Christ scorns, they follow the letter because they have no idea of the spirit.
Quite. That just affirms what I am saying. That's not the truth of it, that's your prejudice and unknowing.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Ask yourself what value truth has over illusion.

Again, mind wants to compare.

By saying samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara, Buddha is saying there is no difference. The mind will project much about how they differ, we imagine much about what truth will give us, what benefits for the one that finds it.

Ultimately all that is different is this self which is stuck in samsara, taking it so very seriously, just drops.

Quite. That just affirms what I am saying. That's not the truth of it, that's your prejudice and unknowing.

It is my observation, Christians take Christ as something other, they identify fully their self with Christianity. This is simply in error, it means your faith is confirming ego. They try to work on the ego, try to become better ego's - better character, better personality. They work on their own imagining, the ego is not real.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The very one looking at Christ, the very one believing in Christianity is ego.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27 I think it is justifies your place as Christ, yet even in this, Christ is still other because ego survives. Still you cling to Jesus, and so your ego is strengthened, as the chooser, the believer. Even in its attempts to be humble, to be Christ-like, it is an error. The very act of worship confirms you are less, and again it is ego which compares. In the worship you are affirming you are not worthy, and thus confirm your illusion.

No true sage remains clinging to a single master, for they see what the master saw. What need is there to continue latched to them when you have arrived yourself? You can look at each and know they speak the same, maybe different perspectives, maybe with their own approach, but still they speak on the same realization. You can love them all, without judgement, and so you no longer choose a favorite.

I always return to this: was Jesus a Jew?

Not at all, he was love.

Do not be a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim or Jew... these are all identifications which confirm ego.

Live as love yourself.

What scripture is needed? Scripture is only there because man does not trust himself, when there is no self to trust or distrust, only love shines. Instead I see a love like that of man and woman, aimed at Jesus or God, this is not true love.

In true love, ego cannot persist, with ego, love dies. All that remains is obsession, dependence, and in the worst cases fanaticism. You make your faith a covering for some negative aspect of what you think you are, it is a protection. Jesus has said you must be able to remove your clothes and stomp on them, the clothes are the ego, the personality which is a mask for what you are as love.

All identifications, from Christian to Christ, Buddhist to Buddha, American or Russian, cover you, give you a feeling of being separate, distinct. This is the problem though, we will go out of our way to prove these distinctions, and this is how war happens. Many are killed because man wants to prove his identification is stronger than the other, many suffer because man wants to prove his identification is more powerful. It is the cause of all that is wrong in the world.

Only in true union can this world become a paradise.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Indeed it is only ego which agrees or disagrees with the other, and protecting your fellow Christians again shows the ego remains. The ego cannot have eternal life, it doesn't exist even now, it is only believed.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
There is only the Supreme. In movement, it is saguna [with attributes]. Motionless, it is nirguna [without attributes]. But it is only the mind that moves or does not move. The real is beyond, you are beyond. Once you have understood that nothing perceivable, or conceivable can be yourself, you are free of your imaginations. To see everything as imagination, born of desire, is necessary for self-realisation. We miss the real by lack of attention and create the unreal by excess of imagination.




~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
 
Top