FmAm
-
Content count
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by FmAm
-
That's possible. But the problem of duality remains in the experience. Even if pain, for example, was not identified with a body or ego, it still would be dual and separate. It isn't experienced by "other channels of individual consciousness". I think that duality has to exist. And so does non-duality. They go hand in hand and are inseparable. Neither is fundamental. Non-duality is duality, duality is non-duality. One leads to another.
-
It would be great to know how Advaita defends itself against solipsism. I have read some essays about this topic, but none of them has defended the theory of the impersonal Consciousness succesfylly.
-
To have a (one) rock in your hand means that there has to be number one (integer). Without certain axioms (which are assumptions in mathematics, based on seeing "a rock", for example) we are left with bare number line. Now, imagine you have to find two points on the line, number 1 and pi. At first you try to search for pi, but it escapes you (infinitesimal). Pi is an endless number so you can't find it. Then you try to find number 1. But it is the same kind of a point! There is no difference between 1 and pi. Number 1 escapes towards infinitesimal. All that is left is infinitesimal and infinity. Infinity and emptiness. One equals infinity equals n. So you can not have a rock in your hand. All you have there is infinity and nothing.
-
Maybe the key to consciousness is universal and impersonal (all conscious beings are composed from the elements of the universe, after all, and the functioning and the action of a conscious experience is defined by whole universe, not by an individual). But consciousness, when it appears, is always personally experienced. At least I haven't heard of impersonal consciousness. All the stories I have heard and read have been told or written by someone and experienced by someone. So when the universe "experiences itself", the experience is always spatial and temporal and personal. (?) This view might be closer to buddhism.
-
-
A good therapist doesn't believe in free will.
-
said: The absolute and the relative. I say: A moron like me playing the teacher is the absolute (or rather my experience of playing the guru). (And so is the experience experienced by a seriously demented person who doesn't know he/she is a person.)
-
Sorry. Someone throwing a rock is obviously hard for me to understand. There are two sides of story. I'm standing and wondering there, watching me giving a piece of paper to someone (in your story this happens again). There are pieces of glass, a rock, someone watching us. But I'm going too far here trying to describe my imaginary experience of that situation. What if I'm not able to conceptualize the pieces of glass, or you, or even myself? I could be seriously demented (this is the situation explained in a socially conditioned way). There's nothing happening to me, but there's still experience. In your experience there are myriad of things happening, including your experience, past and the possible future. Both sides of the story are true as experiences, but not as events. All that is provable to me is the experience. I'm not saying my experience, because in that situation I'm not able to identify "my" and "me".
-
After the rock is thrown and the bottle is broken, what makes you think that I have thrown the rock and the bottle has broken? For it is pure philosophy and storytelling to think that there was a "past" where I threw that rock right there and broke the bottle that is no more a bottle. All I can see is a rock and some pieces of glass. And someone standing there with $20 in hand.
-
Yes, I'm a guy. But I don't think this is a question of gender. And I'm a living proof that those balls don't have to be big.
-
It is highly possible that I'm wrong in everything I say or write (maybe that makes me Zen master ^). But luckily I'm not responsible for my mistakes or writings.
-
Once in a while it's good to remind oneself that all assumptions, whether "false" or "right", spring from reality and happen in reality. They are the ultimate reality themselves.
-
Not always useful. But it can be a lot of fun now and then. But not always.
-
I agree. And if I use words to describe reality beyond pragmatism, I don't. And it's really not my fault if "I do". (Actually I wasn't describing reality, I just tried to demonstrate that mathematics, The Language, points to nonsense and to the world beyond concepts.)
-
Imagine you throw a rock at a bottle. The bottle breaks. Then, you go and see the pieces of glass on the ground and say "I threw a rock. It broke a bottle." If you say something like that, your words are not pointing to the reality, to this world. Because there are just the pieces of glass on the ground. And to be precise, there are no pieces of glass. But that applies only to the reality. o.O
-
If the Ego seeks to preserve itself, how can it also seek to destroy itself?
FmAm replied to DreamBliss's topic in General Discussion
Ego destroying itself isn't any more bizarre event than waves caused by wind. Thoughts and actions aren't disconnected from reality. The only difference is that waves don't know they are waves. We feel ourselves and we think we are the cause of our thoughts, feelings and actions. But we are not the cause. The cause is everywhere and nowhere, and this applies to both waves and thoughts. -
I have to admit the waters have always been quite muddy to me. I guess the best one can do is to contemplate on the question of free will. Sometimes I think free will exists, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I don't think about free will at all. And I guess not thinking about it is just as good as thinking about it.
-
There has never been "pure religion" or "pure truth". As soon as someone announces "the truth", he or she is picking cherries. As soon as someone is seeking the truth, he or she is seeking the cherries. What else life is about but seeking and picking cherries?
-
There is freedom, but there is no one in control. No one using that freedom. No agent. Things just flow, freely. Things appear as things, freedom happens. Freedom is experienced, not utilised. This point of view is called "hard incompatibilism" or "pessimistic incompatibilism" in western philosophy.
-
Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber? Well, here we are, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why. - Kurt Vonnegut
-
I have to disagree with (perhaps) all of the Advaita masters and teachings. It can't be stated that there is Consciousness. All there "is" is an infinitesimal infinity. It's a concept that just can't be understood. This infinitesimal infinity "contains everything possible", including our feeling of consciousness, self, ego, etc. (and Consciousness too). But infinitesimal infinity (II) isn't same as Consciousness. Consciousness can't be described and it has no qualities, but still it "isn't same" as II. Consciousness has something to do with pure being, II has nothing to do with pure being (although "sometimes" pure being "manifests"). Nothing comes from II and nothing goes back to it. There is no "pool of Consciousness" as a source of "souls". The most important part is that II isn't. It is said that Consciousness is, but II doesn't have to be. I know that this might be just semantics, but I think that "Consciousness" or "God" as a pointing concept is way too much existing, even if someone would say that they can't be understood. What do you think? Edit: There should be capital C in the title.
-
“As human beings, not only do we seek resolution, but we also feel that we deserve resolution. However, not only do we not deserve resolution, we suffer from resolution. We don't deserve resolution; we deserve something better than that. We deserve our birthright, which is the middle way, an open state of mind that can relax with paradox and ambiguity.” - Pema Chödrön
-
Do not overlook negative actions merely because they are small; however small a spark may be, it can burn down a haystack as big as a mountain. Do not overlook tiny good actions, thinking they are of no benefit; even tiny drops of water in the end will fill a huge vessel.
-
My greatest "spiritual experience" was realising non-duality while doing maths. I didn't even know that such "thing" or concept existed. I was quite shocked at that time. Although the experience itself was nothing special (it was like noticing that the table is white), it questioned my whole worldview. It took me a while to find out that I wasn't the first one to realise something like that. After some detours (in studying some scientific and nondualistic philosophies) I've started to value the teachings of the Middle Way and dependent origination more and more.
-
I have a strong Buddhist inclination. The reason for "mulling it over" on the Vedanta forum is in my (lay) background in Advaita philosophy. I promise I'll take my pondering to the Buddhist/general forum (but I can't promise I'll never write on Vedanta forum).
