Daniel

According to the Zen Soto tradition, it appears that the dharma transmission is supposed to be produced from working side by side with their teacher, and cannot happen as a householder. Of course, now that it has moved to the west, western values seem to dictate, yes, you too can be enlightened by declining a donut and nothing more. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_ranks_and_hierarchy The third step is shihō, or denpo, dharma transmission.[web 4] Dharma transmission is... None of this should be left out. It's not fighting, it's pointing out a deficiency. It appears to be dharma.

Don't forget to tell us about your credentials in the next post too, OK?

OK, found it. Not too difficult, for someone who wants to be sure their achievement is made public. ... a householder, lay entrusted. In that same post, there's plenty of claims of empowerments being bestowed on them.

Not really different sizes. That's undetermined. Just different types of infinity. But I don't think Michael and I are considering numeric forms of infinity to be divine. I know I'm not; that would be incomplete. If I consider uncountable infinity, then I am lacking letters, and if I include all letters, what about words. And if I include words, then what about ideas. And once I include ideas, what about sentences, stories... it goes on and on and on and on.... keep going.... you're not there yet. And then, all of the negations need to be included. All the numbers which cannot be imagined, all the letters in all the languages which will never be spoken, all the ideas which will never be concieved, all the stories which will never be composed. And then all the possibilities, the could-be, needs to be included as well. Infinity = Everything that was + is + will be + wasn't + isn't + won't + could be. That's completely literally absolutely infinite, and it is definitely omni-present. Omni-present = is + isn't. Those are the two smallest components of infinity.

The context of my comment is: starting ideological conflict by making negative assertions about others. Setting that aside, I think everyone has something to teach, even if it is as a negative role model. And, I don't doubt that it is likely that even those who are negative role models, are also positive role models, and could be very wise and experienced in their own chosen practice. I hear you about the determinate thought, and breathing. I understand that is where you are drawn and I noticed that in the podcast from June you posted.

Sure. "Non-dual is like light which is in very close proximity to the surface of the sun". The imagery is, just beyond the surface of the sun, the light is so intense that there is nothing else but light. It is a reality that consists of only extremely bright light and absolutley nothing else. If an individual spark of light, ray of light, wave of light, were to somehow find itself in close proximity to the sun, it would virtually cease to exist, immediately assimilating into the light that that is coming from the sun. Technically, the spark, ray, or, wave doesn't actually cease to exist. It becomes infinitesimal, absolutely insignificant. That's why I said 'like'. It is 'like' light which is in very close proximity to the sun. It's intended to be a very close approximation of non-dual.

It's not strange. It's predictable. This seems to be the intention. Appeal to your own authority. Flaunting your credentials guarantees .... oh nevermind. If you would like your authority respected please produce proof of your priesthood. Are you an accepted authority in a temple, community, or some organization? Who bestowed this title on you? Can you bring anything reliable? Because your writing indicates to me a self-proclamation of achievement which is seeking validation. Something which is the opposite of enlightenment or harmony with the dao as I understand it.

I don't know what the author of the quote believes about perpetual-bliss, I can only comment on what they are denying.

OK. I just finished watching the video. I thought it would be good to see and hear the presentation in order to better get the speaker's intended message. I think, this closing remark is intended to give a person relief and end on a hopeful optimstic positive but also inquisitive tone. Emotions were not discussed, just the differences between the inner-experience and objective reality, and how the inner experience can be fooled and impaired. So, I think it's natural to be baffled by this last comment. I think that was intentional. It invites further inquiry and deep thinking on the topic, and fits with the overall theme which is questioning perception. Questioning is the theme, so the presentation ends provocatively. "when the end of consciousness comes, there’s nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all." My gut response is: it's true, but is that 'good'? Most people would probably say 'yes', 'fear' is 'bad'. I vote 'no'. 'Fear' is not bad. All emotions are complicated, and I think if Anil and I were to meet up in a tea/coffee-shop somewhere it would not take long for us to agree that 'fear' is not bad except for certain circumstances. And then, we could discuss different circumstances and eventually, after some time is invested, produce a list of qualities which more or less determine when 'fear' is good and when 'fear' is bad. Then, finally, we could discuss different circumstances which can be described as 'the end of concsiousness'. Once Anil and I have reached this point in the discussion, I don't think it would take very long to agree that the 'fear of the end of consciousness' is certainly useful although moderating that 'fear' is important. Anil spent some time talking about anasthesia as a model for 'the end of conscousness', and it's true a person doesn't need to be afraid of anasthesia to the point of avoiding surgery or enduring the pain and suffering of going without it. But it would be foolish to go for major surgery and not consider the possibility that they will never wake up again. My dad will be having back surgery, it would be foolish not to have his affairs in order to be sure my mom has access to all the financial accounts if something horrible happens. (they're old fashioned, 1950s american mindset of gender roles) . All of the kids are notified of the date of surgery, we all make contact immediately before, not so much for him, he knows how we feel. It's for us. Just as he is making sure my mom has what she will need, he lets us kids know what's happening so that we will not be troubled, God-forbid, if something goes wrong, and he never wakes up, and we did not have the opportunity to express ourselves one last time before he dies. But it's not for him, it's not because he is afraid of what will happen to him. If it's the end of consciousness, he won't know we're suffering, he won't care about us, everything that is 'him' ceases to exist from his perspective. Among other things, the 'fear' inspires preparation and that's a good thing. If there was no 'fear', then the kids wouldn't get notified, the financial affairs would not be put in order. At this point in the conversation, Anil and I would probably start to argue. He would say, "that's not fear, that's not what I was talking about." And I would argue, "I know, but, it's a version of fear, it's healthy-fear." And then it becomes semantics. Hopefully neither of us will lose patience, and eventually we will return the point of agreement where we previously agreed, it's circumstantial and conclude there is healthy-fear, and unhealthy-fear. "when the end of consciousness comes, there’s nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all." Having said all of this, maybe you're wondering why I originally said this ^^ is true? If there is healthy-fear of 'the end of consciousness', then how could it be true "there's nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all"? It's because of the time-bound condition at the beginning. "...when the end of concsiousness comes ..." there is literally nothing. Nothing at all. No fear, no joy, no pain, no pleasure, no hope, no dissapointment, nothing at all. So, it's true. But is that 'good'? I would argue, its not 'good'. It's not 'bad' either. It's null. It's what Anil described at the beginning of the talk, it's like being under full anasthesia. Lights out, you're dead. ( assuming this is actually what happens, of course ) When IF this has happened, after it has happened, when IF the end of consciousness comes... it's true! There is nothing to be afraid of. Nothing at all. Because, nothing is all there is for you. NULL. The empty-set. A perfect vaccuum. Not even 'zero'. Less than 'zero'. Always and forever 'less'. Nullification, the action of nullifying. From a religious, spiritual, inter-personal, self-cultivation, perspective it is remarkably useful to understand and not be afraid of nullification in an unhealthy manner. ( not to be afraid in an unhealthy manner ) Almost all paths incorporate it (self-nullification) into their practice, for good reason. And that's why so many encourage it, and want to 'turn-people-on" to this idea of embracing 'nothingness' and becoming 'nothingness'. But, it's not perfect. There are risks. Some people will get lost. And some people who empty themself are not prepared for what is drawn into that void. Those with unresolved trauma in their life story, attempting this solo, lacking a good teacher or community, seem to be the most at risk for this. So, it shouldn't be feared, but respected. That's one way of distinguishing between healthy and unheathy fear. So that's my interpretation of what Anil said. He's actually intending to discourage unhealthy-fear prior to the loss of consciousness which is good, 100% good. And while it's literally true what he said about after 'the end of consciousness', it's not literally 'good' to abandon all fear of it. It IS good and useful for many to experiement with self-nullification, and that's why so many preach-it. But that's not literally 'the end of consciousness', it's just a hiatus.

uncountable infinity fills those gaps. http://5010.mathed.usu.edu/Fall2021/CHendricks/UncountablyInfinite.html And the devil is always welcome. the devil is a friend of mine

If the divine is infinite it cannot be ever be approached, because, it is already omni-present.

No problem, all I ask is that you refrain from quoting me formally or informally. Doing so, naturally, invites a reply.

Many thanks! The plus button. Got it!

Sure. Certain ideologies and worldviews draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the outsiders using the pejorative "delusion". If they don't agree, then, they are automatically considered "deluded". In Christianity, it's Satan who is blinding the non-believer. In Islam it's Iblis. In Baha'i its the "ego". In Hinduism it's 'maya'. In politics it's the 'media', etc... In my reply I'm trying to speak generally. For Satan, and Iblis, and the ego, and the media, it's not that these concepts ( if they are properly defined ) do not have the capability to delude. They can. "... the concept of the delusion is not being rejected." My objection is when: "all others are [automatically labeled] **delusional**". This is repugnant, and invites sharp criticism. If the individuals who are holding this point of view, did not preach it, then there would be very little conflict from me, at least. The post I was replying to was asking "why is it repugnant to have differing opinions about non-duality?" My answer is: "It's not, it's the preaching and the negative judgements applied universally among other things ." Yes, but not exactly. I'm saying that individuals who claim a non-dual perspective will never admit that they are starting ideological conflict and perpetuating ideological conflict. This is because they claim to have transcended the attachment and doctrine which produces ideological conflict in the first place. So, when they are presented with examples of starting and perpetuating conflict, it will be immediately rejected and denied. If they were to acknowledge the mistake, then their own self-described enlightenment collapes. If they were to acknowledge that their philosophy is starting and perpetuating ideological conflict, then their entire philosophy collapses. It's better for these people to just stay quiet and not preach these sorts of things. They can believe it, but once they start preaching it, then that invites the sort of disagreement that I was writing about in that post on page 11. At least the Christians admit it's spiritual warfare. So there's no conflict about what they are doing.

@Cobie, Can you help me, or give me a hint, how to create a quote from one thread and then copy it to another thread? I've tried to figure this out, but I can't seem to do it. If I click reply and then copy the quote from the text-editor in this thread, then go to another thread, and go to the text editor, when I copy it, it doesn't seem to copy properly.

If this is true, you would not be asking me to watch videos repeatedly, and read transcripts repeatedly. However, if I'm wrong, then my suggestion is to aspire to be a better listener. Not literally, this is a text-based forum. But I have been asking questions, making comments, which are all being ignored. It seems like you have a strongly held belief. And part of this strongly held belief is that those who do not share your belief are in 'chains'. And as you said all most all humans are in the state of bondage. Because of this, if a person, any person, says anything which challenges the belief, then, they are immediately categorized as being in 'chains' just like allmost all humans. A person comes to the thread and asks simply "to what end?" This was interpretted as a challenge, and as a result, it is immediatley translated into gibberish. It's not their fault that you chose to scramble their question. "To what end?" means "what's the point?" "what's the purpose?" Someone else asked the same question and your response was simple: "I don't know". The same thing happened to me. I said: "while it's an interesting thought experiment to consider objective compared to subjective phenomena, it seems foolish to me to apply this idea globally to the point of "everything is subjective, everything is in the mind" This could have been a benign comment, and there was nothing illogical about it or any of the remainder of what I wrote before it. But after a few posts, the same claim as made "I don't understand the words [drunk driver]". So, if your intention is to communicate, not to preach, I suggest listening and not dismissing, not ignoring, just because it doesn't match your preconceived ideas.

First, thank you for the transcript. That is light years better than watching a video. What I have been saying repeatedly, and has been ignored, is that the "best guess" is very-very accurate. Anytime a professional baseball player hits the ball traveling at approx 70 mph with a bat, and the outfielder catches it in their mitt, this confirms the accuracy of the "best guess". The fact that I am reading this transcript accurately, and you are reading the transcript accurately and both of us are consuming the identical content confirms that this remarkable accuracy of the "best guess" is shared by you and I. The fact that you copied this transcript into this thread confirms that you strongly trust that the "best guess" is accurate not only for both of us, but also for anyone reading this thread. This ^^ is insulting. I do not need to read things twice for comprehension. i have understood you perfectly from the first word you typed in this thread to the current post. Ignoring what is written is the opposite of doing your best. Edit: unless you are doing your best to ignore the conversation.

I have repeatedly said "I know". It's not crazy at all. It's easy to understand. The issue is about making claims about objects, and projecting the "chains" on others as if it is some sort of priviledged few who are free. But if what you're saying is applied guess what? There is no bondage, that is imagined too.

No thank you. I am not watching 34 minutes of video ( 17 minutes repeated ). I have demonstrated I understand hat you ar saying on page 1. Using the picture below: Yes, I know, you don't want the little man in the picture. But since this is your diagram, and it included the little man, there should not be objection on the grounds of "you just don't get it, you just don't understand." This describes your experience under the influence where the object did not match the obervation/observed. This diagram shos I understand what you are describing. If you can point out a flaw in this diagram EXCLUDING the little man. Then maybe I will consider spending time on watching the video 1 time. Claiming I need to watch it twice is pretty silly. I didn't say it didn't make sense. I said, you seem to be reluctant to acknolewdge that nothing about what have typed communicates anything about the objects beyond 'you'. Let the people complain. I'm not the one repeating and rewinding. The pixels of light are not "on a television screen". The inter-atomic forces which produce physical sensations which are interpretted by the brain as observations accurately describe the physical attributes of the objects that are outside of 'you'. Those physical sensations accuratey describe the physical attributes in part, but not in total. The exceptions are physical impairments on the brain or dreaming, which hopefully you recall was an example I brought long ago as maybe a worth while avenue to explore. The proof of the accuracy of perception and your own trust in it is the conversation we're having, your reaction to it, the diagram you posted, and the diagrams I posted in response.

My question is: what is the connection between the chain and the shadows? There are none, right? The shadows are still shadows. The person is still a person.

Respectfully, this did not answer the question. I asked: what does this communicate about what is beyond 'you'? It seems like the answer is 'nothing', but you are reluctant to simply answer the question. If it is unknown, then, there is no rational reason to make any assertions about being 'chained'. That cannot be known. But it is expected and understood that projecting this 'chained' status on 'almost all humans' is rewarding to the few who claim to be free. So, what you're saying about the inner experience, communicates nothing about what is beyond 'you'. Projecting captivity on others is completely unfounded from the inner experience as described above. It cannot be earnestly denied. Moving on (hopefully): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You said: "You get to live in a simulated holographic experience, which you hope is an accurate representation of reality outside of yourself." Hope is not correct. Trust is correct. The holo-deck, the inner experience is trusted to be accurate for good reasons. There's scientific evidence, of course, but, like I said. In this conversation, you posted pictures which were trusted to carry content to make your message clear. If you did not trust that this diagram would be accurately rendered by my inner-experience, you ould not have sent it. Every word spoken or typed is expressed in trust that the audience will be able to render it accurately in their mind. Each and everytime an interaction occurs as expected between two humans, this reinforces the trust in the accuracy that the observations in the mind accurately describe the objects outside the mind. This is how babies learn language. Maybe-maybe a hermit could deny this. But the minute they speak, are understood, then spoken to, and that is understood, then the internal-experience is reinforced as accurate. Therefore, it's not that this inner-experience is false. It's not HOPE that it is accurate. It is trusted to be accurate, for very good reasons. And you have demonstrated your own trust in their accuracy. And I have confirmed that they are accurate by taking those diagrams and editting them to reconcile the claimed communication gap. Those reasons are a direct consequence of the existence of qualia outside the mind which are accurately abstracted inside the mind. I very carefully wrote about the qualia behind the question mark outside the mind. None of this is relating to that. If it is unknown what is behind the question mark, then no claims can be made about the pipe or reality at all. Therefore what is written below is false. The correct statement is: "I don't know if such abstractions are mental constructs. I don't know if they lack inherent reality." The exaggeration, I think, is a consequence of sloppy language which conflates "objects" and their "observations" in the mind.

Great. What does this say about anything outside or beyond "you"? Anything?

This is irrelvant to whether or not qualia are inherently unreal. From your own diagram. There are qualia behind the question mark. Ignorance of them does not render them NULL.

Please do not be insulted, but your language above is ambiguous. "If you can see it, if you can hear it, if you can smell it, if you can taste it, if you can feel it, if you can remember it, then it is not real" What is 'IT"? The sensation or the phenomena which produces the sensation? Both are 'real'. Please answer the question above? What is 'IT"? The sensation or the phenomena which produces the sensation?

@kakapo, in an effort to get back on track, here is my original reply to the thread in context. It seemed at several tims in the thread you agreed with what I wrote, but then walked that back for reasons which are not entirely clear to me. ( Please note the word choice "observation". I used this same word. It seems that "observation" = "observed" in the model you are presenting. There should be no objection when I used that word. ) Notice the distinction I am making. It is between the "observed" and the "observation" which you seem to use interchangeably in this thread. I think that's a problem which is leading to the denial of qualia.