neti neti
-
Content count
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by neti neti
-
"Sympathy? Not for me. No mercy for a criminal freak in Las Vegas. This place is like the army: the shark ethic prevails-eat the wounded. In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity." ~Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream) (1971) by Hunter S. Thompson
-
You are, as the unblemished or undifferentiated purity or light of knowledge that is without (the delusion of) the differentiated impurity or darkness of ignorance. However...
-
In exploring perceived emptiness, that divine unborn principle manifests as pure potentiality. As that unborn principle, one is the Lord of Ignorance. The unknowing One, in which all knowledge spontaneously arises.
-
Maya is not to be gotten rid of, for Maya is all of that which does not, in a real sense, exist. The prospect of becoming enlightened itself, is a play of Maya. Mastering Maya is a distraction, although being seduced into that distraction may very well be a means of discovering one was already the Master all along.
-
Indeed, any model is a working model. You as the mirror, will unfailingly be provided what is considered as "needed" by the world-reflection. A conscious moment to moment mindfulness allows for the witnessing and/or elimination of "subconscious" thoughts/beliefs rising to the surface and creating one's experience. By addiction to this "co-creative" process however, one can lose sight of oneself, becoming blinded and lost in the epic magic of wearing the universe as one's suit. Beware of Maya!
-
Nothing but Self, in its appearance of coming or going by its power of Sakti, which is only itself.
-
I thought this was apropos, for your and my enjoyment.
-
The issue for me is the big assumption that you keep assuming this is a big assumption. Sorry, couldn't help myself. I guess I'm a troll now.
-
Thanks for elaborating. The meditative experience is a means of transcending body-consciousness, in both waking and dreaming, and finally, even sleep is revealed to be unreal in the light of the singular non-dual consciousness. But even the resulting state of "wakeful/conscious sleep" or "turiyatita", is also known to be unreal once its novelty expires. In this sense, (s)elf is dis-integrated. Self cannot be experienced, for as Self, there is no experience to be called one's own that is not Self itself. Rather, Self's nature, reflected in the mind-space as sat-chit-ananda, is "directly known" as one assumes its nature throughout the waking, dreaming, sleeping or dying dramas, by being Self. In this sense, (S)elf is integrated. Whether on the cushion or beyond, there is neither duality nor non-duality. There is only Self.
-
I already responded to that line of thought, in agreement btw , and then followed up with a question you have yet to answer. I await your response in suspense.
-
Ok. If this is your understanding, then can you explain why you consider it circular logic to conclude that you as the perceiver, the perceived and the perceiving consist of the same nature/reality?
-
Thanks Jeff. Have you ever dreamt a dream so real, that you did not realize you were dreaming until you woke up? I'm sure you have. If so, then how do you know that the waking experience is also not happening "in the mind" ? What exactly determines the difference between the two, for you?
-
Not to disregard the rest of your contribution steve, but just wanted to comment on the above. The one holding on eventually does let go. The integration is ultimately disintegration, for the practitioner "dissolves" into that unidentified Space of Jnana, as the Absolute... all pointers are misnomers.
-
It's interesting how about a year to the date the same things are being said from that thread to this thread. Dwai and Jeff arguing semantics, Jeff talking about logic traps, and my questions being ignored. I'd rather not go that route again, so I'll just gracefully bow out. Thanks everyone.
-
In the end, Jeff and I almost always agree to disagree. Which is perfectly OK.
-
Questions were posted and answers were offered in that thread, unlike this one. In fact, upon closer inspection I believe you'll also find that most questions asked of him in that thread were also skillfully dodged. When someone like Jeff, who I believe to be quite knowledgeable in the subject at hand, comes in here with what seems like the sole purpose of pointing out logical flaws without any support for the foundations of his conclusions, (other than "it's obvious , you're wrong") then yes, I see that as trolling. Sorry if you don't see it s1va. I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion similar to the thread you've highlighted if he would be so kind as to lay out the reasoning behind HIS premises. Most preferably, by the common courtesy of at least attempting to answer the questions asked of him. The fact that he won't, speaks volumes of his intentions from my perspective. Perhaps he will yet prove me wrong.
-
The 2nd post in this thread expresses the limitations of mind in these matters quite thoroughly, and it's about as close as it gets.
-
I, by default, tread lightly within a thread I haven't begun, Jonesy. At the very least, I don't come in to them calling established doctrines false as if my assertions could not also be labeled as assumptions. Most importantly, I answer any and all questions posed toward me. Thanks for your input though.
-
Ok thanks dwai. I feel it would help if he realized though, that directly opposing established doctrines and refusing to answer questions isn't a very profitable approach for a meaningful discussion.
-
You know where the questions are, and I'm sure numbering them one by one for you would be another exercise in futility. Do as you wish. There was never even a tree. Regards.
-
If that was your intention, mission accomplished Jeff. If not, the questions which force you to reevaluate your position still stand.
-
Oh no by all means please continue if you are so led. Your insights are quite welcome as always. It just seems counterintuitive how some members engage in discussion by basically just saying, "no you're wrong." It also becomes frustrating when they shamelessly ignore any and all pointed questions once their own have been answered.
-
No s1va, it's obvious who the troublemaker is here. Me! Haha!
-
I sometimes wonder if posters like you actually believe what they post, or just come in to troll the Hindu section to start drama and arguments. I'm swiftly reminded that no one else is here, and I must just enjoy being annoyed!
-
Lol now I know you're just complicating things. All those "levels" "maybes" and "whatifs" are illusions. Your extrapolating here only serves to prove the endless mental gymnastics being excercised within the topic's title. There is only Brahman. So rest assured that as Brahman, speculation about whether or not there is another one without a second does not arise.
