« Hubble photo of deep space is naturally divine | Main | Religion’s dangerous certainty »

August 09, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi Brian,

It seems that an important - and mostly unconscious yet how deep I don't I know - 'turnaround' occured with the Kinko's incident.
The dynamic of (your) presence/life has been subtly but radicaly reversed:
it is not more so much about seeking to
'Do what [you] want'
but simply
'Wanting what [you] are doing'

Or may be I am just talking crap ... what do I know ...

JP

JP, you're not talking crap. Or, you are. Whatever, you seem to be talking what I'm hearing. Yes, right on.

I can't say that I had a Kinko's satori. But I do feel some sort of seismic shifting in my psyche.

A Zen book I'm reading at the moment points in the same direction, not too surprisingly.

What I'm seeing, hazily, vaguely, indistinctly, is that my seeing is my entire problem. And my entire solution.

Yeah, I know. There's nothing new in those last two sentences. It's been said a jillion times before, by so many others.

And also by me, as I said to myself in this post.

But there's seeing and Seeing. Saying and saying. I don't know how else to put it.

There's something going on here. I don't know what it is.

It's just a glimpse of something that really isn't a thing, which makes it...whatever it is.

Your post here reminded me of one of my favorite YouTube videos with Puppetji, on The Secret, actually - a hilarious spoof, only a couple of minutes long, I think you might enjoy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXdsDxYnGkI

wanting and not wanting: the cause of most of our suffering. go figure.

lets see what would life be like if humans did not have desires that lead to wanting and not wanting?

oh there would be no world or drama as we know it.

those desires are no accident or due to chance. sorry darwinists.

the buddha believed that ignorance was the cause of our suffering.

does this mean that wanting and not wanting are based in ignorance? appears so. sorry atheists I know how you hate that word ignorance.

now go find the root cause of that ignorance and you may be surprised at what you discover.

Deep questions, and valid ones.

Figuring out who that "wanting creature" is—that's a true quest, if I ever heard one. Good luck with the adventure.

IT's manifestation and existence is only as appearance, as what seems to be, but IT can only be experienced as what is known, only seen as that which is seen.

This is because whatever is conceptualized about IT is only a concept of what IT is, but what IT is, is not any 'thing'.

Since IT is only what is perceived or conceived IT cannot be known because what is conceiving/perceiving cannot do this to ITself. Turning upon ITself, trying to find ITself would make IT's subjectivity an object...thus duality and the seeming separate multitudes in creation.

How could IT, the conceiving of time and space, have been born? Where could IT live? How could IT die? For IT, the conceiver of the birth, life and death of all things cannot be conceived or known in any way.

IT is pure awareness, unaware of ITself, yet is the awareness/being of all things. Your thinking/perceiving is IT. IT is life, but only as IT's objects. Your living is IT's living that transcends all appearance, yet IT is fully immanent in IT's appearance as all that is, yet IT is no 'thing' at all.

IT is as you are, but IT is not an IT !!

They say, "in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour", or "in the name of Allah, God, the Master, Thor, or Little Bo Peep."

From what, to where, to whom?

THIS is IT, as IT is, right now!

"THIS is IT, as IT is, right now!"

Tucson bob well yes this is correct but this statement can be misleading.

When discussing this IT every statement is a paradox. This IT is; but is this IT which we perceive to be reality, really IT or an illusion. This IT has an underlying reality. So is this right now IT or is the underlying reality IT.

Now this IT that you say is no thing at all is actually everything that is. Nothingness is everything. Nothingness is a confusing and scary synonym for describing this pure awareness.

The journey of our perceived soul might well be nothing more than this IT expressing ITself. It can only express itself through consciousness as pure awareness is devoid of any expression.

Not that anything I just stated is true just one more intellectual discussion on IT; whatever IT may be or not be.

Ok just fried my brain got to go.

William said: "Tucson bob well yes this is correct but this statement can be misleading."

Any statement can be misleading especially the one I made that you're talking about. Different minds will take it to mean different things.

William said: "When discussing this IT every statement is a paradox. This IT is; but is this IT which we perceive to be reality, really IT or an illusion. This IT has an underlying reality. So is this right now IT or is the underlying reality IT."

Nothing is real in any absolute sense. IT is not a "thing" to be known by anyone. That's why IT is never found. Who could do it? If there were a "who" to see IT, that would be like an eye seeing itself.

William said: "Now this IT that you say is no thing at all is actually everything that is. Nothingness is everything. Nothingness is a confusing and scary synonym for describing this pure awareness."

IT neither is nor is not. Only the phantom ego, whose existence is only a concept, has anything to fear.

William said: "The journey of our perceived soul might well be nothing more than this IT expressing ITself. It can only express itself through consciousness as pure awareness is devoid of any expression."

There is no soul because there is no thing other than this IT that is no 'thing', and there is no journey to anywhere as IT can't be anywhere but where IT is/isn't. It has no "self" to express.

William said: "Not that anything I just stated is true just one more intellectual discussion on IT; whatever IT may be or not be."

Same here.

William said: "Ok just fried my brain got to go."

Ditto.


Tucson bob

This is advaita teaching and to say there is no soul or personality then to sign your name tucson bob is a bit misleading don’t you think.

I guess you did not notice I stated perceived soul. Why is it that people can say there is no soul or personality and still communicate as if they are indeed a person or a self. Why not sign your name IT. And once you sign your name IT you have contradicted your very statements about nothingness. If you were walking down a busy street and I yelled IT I doubt you would turn around but if I yelled Tucson bob I think there is a high probability that you would turn around to see who is yelling your name.

Most people that do some deep seeking come to accept that all is oneness but the seeking does not stop there. Seekers seek the what’s and meanings and whys of their existence even if they come to realize it might all be perception and their ability to be aware and they continue seeking until they become that that is not just intellectualize about it.

People want the details of this mystery of life not a blanket statement that there is no self or soul. There certainty is expression going on look around. The very fact that you are expressing yourself on this blog and signing your name Tucson bob shows expression and contradicts your statements.

Once most people buy into advaita teachings they become as fixed on their beliefs as a skeptic or a religious fundamentalist. Somehow once they figure out that all is oneness or IT most become arrogant and then everything becomes “bullshit” to them. I use this term because it appears to be a popular term to many of them but not all. Vernon Cohen an advaita teacher I have found is a wonderful exception to the arrogance I often see in self described advaita gurus.

People that are suffering from both mental and physical pain and to tell them it is all bullshit or they are nothingness or it is just their ego and their ego is just a concept not really them suffering borders on both arrogance and sadistic.

If someone picked up a baseball bat and hit you in the head with it I doubt if you would yell at that person it is just a concept and my ego does not exist therefore there is no expression that happened to me therefore this did not really happen; as they haul your nothingness off to a nonexistent hospital in a nonexistent ambulance on a nonexistent road with nonexistent medical techs with an nonexistent driver to be treated by a nonexistent doctor in a nonexistent emergency room.

I am fascinated by this phenomenon of how beliefs can overwhelm our rational minds. Tucson bob it is my belief at this time that you are a conscious entity that perceives itself as separate that has a degree of awareness. Everyone including you perceives themselves as experiencing a series of events and moving in a spiral direction towards full awareness.

You would not be doing this earth journey if you did not perceive yourself as a separate self. Wow sorry for the long blog Brian had to get that off my chest. Will work on that.

William,
Words, of course, are contradictory when trying to point to a non-dual apperception, but they are the only tool we have on this blog. Sign language certainly won't work. Perhaps if we were in each other's presense we could just sit there and 'grok fullness' in silence. So, in the spirit of that, here is my response to your comment...
!


William,

I... yes "I", have a few remarks about your comments to Tucson Bob. You wrote:

"This is advaita teaching and to say there is no soul or personality then to sign your name tucson bob is a bit misleading don’t you think."

Who said anything about advaita? You said "soul or personality" - but these are just words and ideas. And what does it matter what name is used? Names are but words too. It would not matter if Bob used that name, some other name, or no name. You are quibbling over nothing.


"Why is it that people can say there is no soul or personality and still communicate as if they are indeed a person or a self."

"communicate as if"? That is merely your interpretation and assumption of who is communicating and what is being communicated. Just where is this "person or self"? Let's see it. Does it exist simply because of the manner of communication? I think not.


"Why not sign your name IT."

Tha's absurd. What does it matter which name or word is used? You are quibbling over words again.


"And once you sign your name IT you have contradicted your very statements about nothingness."

No, not at all. There is no contradiction. It matters not what named is signed or not signed.


"Most people that do some deep seeking come to accept that all is oneness but the seeking does not stop there."

This issue is not about "most people".


"Seekers seek the what’s and meanings and whys of their existence even if they come to realize it might all be perception and their ability to be aware and they continue seeking until they become that that is not just intellectualize about it."

Meaningless mumbo-jumbo.


"People want the details of this mystery of life not a blanket statement that there is no self or soul."

Who knows what "people want"? Who cares what "people want"? There was no "blanket statement". What people want has nothing to do with it. Where is this "soul"?


"The very fact that you are expressing yourself on this blog and signing your name Tucson bob shows expression and contradicts your statements."

No it doesn't. So-called "expression" does not contradict anything. There is no contradiction anywhere. Whatever may be said or not said does not change the truth.


"Once most people buy into advaita teachings they become as fixed on their beliefs as a skeptic or a religious fundamentalist."

Who is buying into "advaita teachings"? Certainly not I, nor Tucson Bob. Your so-called "advaita teachings are actually just ideas and "fixed beliefs" that you have.


"Somehow once they figure out that all is oneness or IT most become arrogant and then everything becomes “bullshit” to them."

No, actually bullshit is when people like you think that you know better and that other people are "arrogant".


"I use this term because it appears to be a popular term to many of them but not all."

No, you used it because YOU chose to use it. It has nothing to do with "popular" or "them". Don't try to pass it off on "them".


"....an advaita teacher I have found is a wonderful exception to the arrogance I often see in self described advaita gurus."

The issue was never about "self described advaita gurus". And if you are following a teacher, then you haven't the maturity or wisdom to criticise others.


"People that are suffering from both mental and physical pain and to tell them it is all bullshit or they are nothingness or it is just their ego and their ego is just a concept not really them suffering borders on both arrogance and sadistic."

No one said it is bullshit, and no one said it is nothingness. But yes the ego IS a concept, and that IS the cause of the suffering. And to regard the pointing towards the truth as being "arrogance and sadistic", is quite foolish and lame. But alas, such is the folly that arises from avidya (ignorance).


"If someone picked up a baseball bat and hit you in the head with it I doubt if you would yell at that person it is just a concept and my ego does not exist....." etc etc etc.

All mere conjecture.... proving nothing. The fact is that you do not ever know what anyone else will think, say, or do.


"I am fascinated by this phenomenon of how beliefs can overwhelm our rational minds."

Just pay attention to your own beliefs. Therein lies the problem. See the following:


"Tucson bob ... you are a conscious entity that perceives itself as separate that has a degree of awareness."

Wrong. You really do NOT how Tucson Bob perceives himself. (such as "separate", etc)


"Everyone including you perceives themselves as experiencing a series of events and moving in a spiral direction towards full awareness."

Even more wrong. You don NOT know how "everyone" perceives themselves, "events", "spiral direction", etc. etc. You only know how YOU perceive. You are apparently full of presumptions which indicate that you have not true understanding of the paradoxical nature of existence.


"You would not be doing this earth journey if you did not perceive yourself as a separate self."

Wrong again. Not so. So-called perception of "separate self" is not any cause. Nor is the clarity of non-separation. Your so-called "earth journey" is simply like a dream. It is a dream within a dream. Who is the dreamer? ... and who is the dreamer when the dreamer awakens?

You will not know the real answers until there is awakening. Until you have no more... "mumbo-jumbo".


Hey Tao,

"Even more wrong. You don NOT know how "everyone" perceives themselves, "events", "spiral direction", etc. etc. You only know how YOU perceive. You are apparently full of presumptions which indicate that you have not true understanding of the paradoxical nature of existence."

How do you know that he does NOT know how "everyone" perceives? May be he is a "special" "individual" that knows how all others know. There is no way for you to know that [according to you]. Why do I need to say special individual? May be Tao is the only one who does "NOT know how everyone perceivces themselves". How would he know that? Are we full of presumptions but Tao is not? Is this the "true understanding of the paradoxical nature of existence."?

I am getting confused with and about all these "who" and "you" that "we" are talking about ...

Like my grand-mother enjoyed saying: "there is nothing like ironing all the wrinkles of life with the tautology 'It is what it is' "

Have a nice day,
JP

Tucson bob
Thanks for the dialog much appreciated. Not many people will commit to a dialog on such a simple but profound truth.

"Whatever may be said or not said does not change the truth"

It depends on how it is said that is my point. If it is said without compassion without humility or without love then it is intellectualism (gotcha moments) and if unsolicited even trespassing rather then wisdom.

The truth? This is what life experiences have taught me. Those that profess to know the truth and are quick to point out others ignorance are the very people to be most cautious of. My own dialog with you Tucson bob may fall into that very category. Working on it.

"But alas, such is the folly that arises from avidya (ignorance)."

This is a typical intellectual statement accusing others of folly and being ignorant but at the same time suggesting an awaken status for that self that does not exist. A popular approach that confirmed atheists often take is to accuse others of being ignorant if your views do not conform to theirs.

The perception of a separate self has to arise from ignorance (not knowing/unawareness) or there would be no “dream”. Perception of other has its home in ignorance. Now the question is where does ignorance find its home or origin.

To date I have not found one advaita student that has a clue as to the origin of that ignorance.

The most satisfying dialog I have had with an advaita student/guru is Vernon Cohen. What a humble and compassionate teacher. I believe that to self-proclaim or even suggest an awaken guru status is delusional and ego centered.

What is the origin of your ignorance Tucson bob or do you claim to be without ignorance?


"Hey" JP,

You asked: "How do you know that he does NOT know how "everyone" perceives? May be he is a "special" "individual" that knows how all others know."

What idiotic horseshit. If that's the way you think, then you've really got a serious mental problem. Do go get some professional help for that psychotic delusion of yours.


You also asked: "Why do I need to say special individual?"

Well.... probably because you're an idiot.


"Are we full of presumptions but Tao is not?"

Apparently so.


"Is this the "true understanding of the paradoxical nature of existence?"

Apparently not in your case.


"I am getting confused with and about all these "who" and "you" that "we" are talking about"

That's because you're a confused idiot.


Your grandmother supposedly said: "there is nothing like ironing all the wrinkles of life with the tautology 'It is what it is'"

Is it? ... Not necessarily.


And btw... Try to have an unconfused day.

Tucson bob

Much apologies I confused you with Tao.

Please accept my apologies.

William,

Please be informed: In your post above, the comments which you have replied to are mine, not Tucson Bob's. I think you have confused us. That being said, here is my response to you:


I previously wrote: "Whatever may be said or not said does not change the truth"

You replied: "It depends on how it is said that is my point. If it is said without compassion without humility or without love then it is intellectualism..."

My response: Truth is not dependent upon "how it is said", regardless of compassion or humility, or not. Nor is it an intellectual matter.


You wrote: "The truth? ... Those that profess to know the truth and are quick to point out others ignorance are the very people to be most cautious of."

My response: I don't claim to know anything. But for others to assert rigid dogma and beliefs as though they are the final truth, as do the advocates and followers of Santmat/RS, is indeed obvious ignorance.


You wrote: "My own dialog with you Tucson bob may fall into that very category."

My response: Again, I am not Tucson Bob. And it appears that you have mistakenly thought that my previous posted comments were made by Bob.


I previously wrote: "But alas, such is the folly that arises from avidya (ignorance)."

You replied: "This is a typical intellectual statement accusing others of folly and being ignorant but at the same time suggesting an awaken status for that self that does not exist."

My response: You are quite mistaken. First, there was no such personal "accusation". It is a staemetn of fact. Folly does indeed arise or result from ignorance. Second, there was no such "suggesting an awaken status for that self that does not exist". However, the awakened state is not related to "self". The awakened state is devoid of "self" (which is merely a thought).


You wrote: "A popular approach that confirmed atheists often take is to accuse others of being ignorant if your views do not conform to theirs."

I am not an atheist. That I am is merely another one of your erroneous presumptions.


You wrote: "The perception of a separate self has to arise from ignorance (not knowing/unawareness) or there would be no “dream”. Perception of other has its home in ignorance. Now the question is where does ignorance find its home or origin."

My response: Perception is irrelevant. The notion of "other" is duality. Ignorance is simply absence of real knowledge, just as darkness is simply an absence of light.

You wrote: "To date I have not found one advaita student that has a clue as to the origin of that ignorance."

My response: I am not a student of advaita. But the "origin" of ignorance can only be a misapprehension due to absence of knowledge.

You wrote: "The most satisfying dialog I have had with an advaita student/guru is Vernon Cohen. What a humble and compassionate teacher."

My resonse: That may be your feeling and opinion, but I could not care less about advaita students/gurus. All such ideas, matters, and persons are quite irrelevant to that life which is simply happening.


You wrote; "I believe that to self-proclaim or even suggest an awaken guru status is delusional and ego centered."

My response: It is you who are the one who is suggesting "guru status". The awakened state has no such "status" or "guru", and no such delusion or "ego".


You wrote: "What is the origin of your ignorance Tucson bob or do you claim to be without ignorance?"

My response: Again, I am not Tucson Bob, and also I do not claim ignorance or "without ignorance". As for "origin", you must discover the answer to that for yourself.

It appears that you have some various unexamined or erroneous presumptions about knowledge versus ignorance that are not particularly relevant to the issue regarding what name someone uses.

William,

Since you confused me with Tao, I'll let him respond to your comments if he feels like it.

I do feel like responding to one thing you said:

"The perception of a separate self has to arise from ignorance (not knowing/unawareness) or there would be no “dream”. Perception of other has its home in ignorance. Now the question is where does ignorance find its home or origin...To date I have not found one advaita student that has a clue as to the origin of that ignorance."

OK, let's pretend I am an advaita/zen/ch'an student asking the question, Why are we ignorant? Some teacher might say the answer is that split-mind, attempting to understand via a subject perveiving objects, cannot recognize its own awareness as its object.

There is no need to recognize our awareness, and it is impossible to do so because there is no 'thing' here to recognize, and no 'thing' there to recognize. Any attempt to do so prevents perception of this which we are.

This intuitive perception is not a function of the normal conceptual thinking process. It is an immediate intuition unpredictably released by any number of stimuli..the dropping of a book or a tab of acid, the chirping of a bird, a particularly resonant fart.

The main obstacle to this intuition is in attributing subjectivity to phenomenal objects and objectivity to what is subjective. Mind can't be reached by mind, fire can't be put out by fire and Awareness is no thing of which we can be aware as an object. Don't you see?

Awareness is no kind of knowledge of which one can be ignorant as all knowledge is ideation only, within space-time. We simply must be absent for Awareness to be present, but we can't become absent as long as there is a 'we' doing it.

People expect enlightenment to be a state or thing one can say they possess, that once achieved, one walks around in perpetual bliss with supernatural powers. It is not a thing of duration that has it's existence in the space-time context, so no enlightenment exists as such, nothing is changed. You still walk around as a regular person with opinions and a personality. It is nothing anyone can lay claim to.

John Blofeld translates Hui Hai as saying:
"Enlightenment, instead of altering our state, discloses what we have always been."

Dogs bark and horns honk.


Tao

I did make a mistake on names but according to your truths it is not “I” that make the mistake as “I” does not exist but IT make the mistake so next time I hope IT does a better job of reading and responding. Just kidding don’t be so serious spent much of my life there and seriousness is based in the ego and not in the spirit.


“It is a staemetn of fact.”

There are two times that I am very wary of people and one is when they tell me what truth is. The other is when they proclaim they have a statement of fact. At this stage of our evolution of consciousness truths and facts appear to be very relative and subject to change.

The world is full of people telling others what are facts and truths and those people that do not agree entirely with their facts and truths they attack with such statements as accusing others of folly and ignorance.

“I am not an atheist.” Never said you were. Read closely I related that your responses were similar if not the same as I notice atheist give me someone does not agree with their facts and truths. The atheists love the fact and truth of Darwinism as much as others love the fact and truth of nothingness.

“My response: Perception is irrelevant. The notion of "other" is duality. Ignorance is simply absence of real knowledge,”

This response reveals your lack of knowledge or understanding of ignorance as it applies to perception and duality. You were doing pretty good with your advaita knowledge but this statement you may want to think deeply on. Duality has its home in ignorance, as does a perception of other.

“But the "origin" of ignorance can only be a misapprehension due to absence of knowledge.”

Not sure what you meant here but the absence of knowledge is a definition of ignorance not its origin. If you want to clarify this statement that would be fine with me. Or not.

“That's because you're a confused idiot.” “Well.... probably because you're an idiot.”

These responses I took from your comments to JP. Anyone that makes such a statement about another person and still believes they have an awaken status I am very sorry to inform them but they are living in a very delusional state. The most observable trait of an awakened person is compassion. Compassion is simply an understanding of another person’s lack of awareness. Name-calling has it home in ego-centered behavior. Ego centered behavior has its home in duality and a perception of a separate self. Name-calling has its origin in doubt and also can be a self-esteem issue. Both ego centered behavior and duality are based in not knowing or unawareness. Not knowing and unawareness are synonyms for ignorance.

These statements I just made were very harsh but the road of a self proclaimed guru is a very harsh road if the behavior does not match the claims.

“What idiotic horseshit” this is a common advaita response that I have received from a couple of advaita self proclaimed gurus but most use the word bullshit. Again for name-calling see above.

Tao thank you for the dialog. Much appreciated.

tucson bob

again sorry for the mixup

hey those were some interesting thoughts you wrote.

need some to time to think on them

yoga time now

thanks for taking the time to share

get back to you soon

William,

I am not too keen on continuing this "dialog" as you put it. That's because this is Brian's private blog and not an open group forum. So I tend to prefer to keep my comments and responses mainly to Brian's articles and topics rather than engaging in lengthy off-topic debates with other commenters. I am sure that I may appear to be otherwise to some folks, but that is not my sentiment. Therfore, at some point I must draw the line on what could be further endless debate, and an apparent desire on your part to one-up me. I don't find such continual one-uping interaction to be meaningful or productive.


You wrote: "...according to your truths it is not “I” that make the mistake as “I” does not exist but IT make the mistake..."

I did not say that "I" does not exist. "I" is simply a thought and a word. As for "IT", I have no idea what "IT" means to you. But "IT" does not mean anything to me. Nor I blame you for majing any mistake. I do think that you are presuming that I subscribe to various ideas, when in fact I don't.


You wrote: "...don’t be so serious spent much of my life there and seriousness is based in the ego and not in the spirit."

It's sort of funny that you think I am "so serious". That shows you have misjudged me. I am neither serious nor not serious. And you also go on to imply a "based in the ego". However, neither seriousness nor humor equates to ego or to egolessness respectively.


I had written previously: "It is a staement of fact. Folly does indeed arise or result from ignorance."

To which you replied: "There are two times that I am very wary of people and one is when they tell me what truth is. The other is when they proclaim they have a statement of fact."

You are taking this out of context. Fyi, I had originally written: "But alas, such is the folly that arises from avidya (ignorance)." That is self-explanatory. I then later responded: "It is a statement of fact. Folly does indeed arise or result from ignorance." Now if you do not understand or accept that, then that is your problem not mine. You can take it or leave it. At some point hopefully you will come to understand that. But I am not out to prove anything to you, and certainly not "truth". That you will have to discover on your own.


You wrote: "At this stage of our evolution of consciousness truths and facts appear to be very relative and subject to change."

First of all, facts are simply facts. Truth is another thing altogether. There are so-called relative truths, but I do not see "consciousness" as evolving. I see consciousness or awareness as the sub-stratum of all perceived phenomena. You are thge one who is bringing the notion of "truth" into this. I myself don't think in terms of "truth". For "truth" is just merely an idea as well.


You wrote: "The world is full of people telling others what are facts and truths"

Facts are simply self-evident. However, if you are implying that I am "telling others what are facts and truths", you are quite mistaken.


You wrote: "...and those people that do not agree entirely with their facts and truths they attack with such statements as accusing others of folly and ignorance."

If you are referring to me, then you are mistaken. I did not "accuse" anyone of anything. I simply said that folly is the result of ignorance. You are reacting rather defensively and blowing this all out of proportion. You obviously have a charge or personal hang-up about it.


You wrote: "The atheists love the fact and truth of Darwinism as much as others love the fact and truth of nothingness."

Perhaps. I don't know. Darwinism is a theory, not a truth. Nothingness is just an abstract idea. I don't see how "nothingness" has anything to do with the issue.


I had written previously: "Perception is irrelevant. The notion of "other" is duality. Ignorance is simply absence of real knowledge"

You replied: "This response reveals your lack of knowledge or understanding of ignorance as it applies to perception and duality."

Unfortunately your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Sense perception IS irrelevant to Self-knowledge. And the notion of an "other" IS duality. And ignorance most certainly IS simply an absence of real knowledge.


You also replied: "You were doing pretty good with your advaita knowledge..."

Again, this is a false presumption on your part. I was not relating "advaita knowledge". I don't subscribe to advaita or to any other philosophical orientation.


You also went on to say: "Duality has its home in ignorance, as does a perception of other."

I never said or implied otherwise.


I had written previously: “But the "origin" of ignorance can only be a misapprehension due to absence of knowledge.”

To which you replied: "...the absence of knowledge is a definition of ignorance not its origin."

I had already said that ignorance is simply an absence of knowledge. And the notion or question of "the origin of ignorance", is itself part of ignorance. When there is knowledge, then there is no ignorance, and so therfore no "origin" of ignorance either.


You also wrote: "If you want to clarify this statement that would be fine with me."

Yes, I have done so just above.


You wrote: "These responses I took from your comments to JP. Anyone that makes such a statement about another person and still believes they have an awaken status I am very sorry to inform them but they are living in a very delusional state."

First, you are cross referencing something out of context, which is derived from another completely separate comment to another commenter. If you wish to address that, it would be more appropriate to do so in a separate post. Second, you are assuming that I "believe" that I "have an awaken status". However, I never said or implied any such thing. In fact, I do not regard myself in such terms or categorizations. Nor am I in a "very delusional state". Your presumptions about my state of mind are baseless and unfounded. It has now become obvious that your intent is merely to fabricate distortions and false presumtions about me, and then quibble and make criticisms based on those erroneous presumptions. I am not interested in that type of game.


You stated: "The most observable trait of an awakened person is compassion."

That is merely your own opinion. It is necessarily so.


You wrote: "Compassion is simply an understanding of another person’s lack of awareness."

There is no such "lack of awareness" in any person. All living beings have/are awareness. Having "compassion" is irrelevant.


You wrote: "Name-calling has it home in ego-centered behavior."

"Name-calling" has nothing to do with this. So for clarification sake, here are the actual specfic portions of my comments to JP that you are apparently referring to:

--------------------------------

JP asked: "How do you know that he does NOT know how "everyone" perceives? May be he is a "special" "individual" that knows how all others know."

I replied: "What idiotic horseshit. If that's the way you think, then you've really got a serious mental problem. Do go get some professional help for that psychotic delusion of yours."

JP also asked: "Why do I need to say special individual?"

I replied: "Well.... probably because you're an idiot."

JP later stated: "I am getting confused with and about all these "who" and "you" that "we" are talking about"

I replied: "That's because you're a confused idiot."

---------------------------------

Try to understand that these are simply my personal opinions about JP and more specifically about JP's rather absurd, ridiculous, and nonsensical comments and apparent confusion. My responses to his rather "idiotic" comments do not equate to "ego-centered behavior" nor name-calling. You obviously have some hang-ups about such terms and opinions.


You wrote: "Ego centered behavior has its home in duality and a perception of a separate self."

How do you know? What is "ego-centerd behavior? You seem to presume that you know something, and that based upon mere words, that you know where I am at. But you do not. As long as you continue to make all these rather erroneous presumptions about various things, there is no point in my continuing this pointless debate.


You wrote: "Name-calling has its origin in doubt and also can be a self-esteem issue."

Not necessarily. And again, in this instance this was merely an personal opinion based upon someone's rather absurd thinking and comments, not knee-jerk "name-calling".


"You wrote: Both ego centered behavior and duality are based in not knowing or unawareness. Not knowing and unawareness are synonyms for ignorance."

This is just mere unnecessary words which really proves nothing. Either there is awakening, or not. And there are no rules.


You wrote: "These statements I just made were very harsh but the road of a self proclaimed guru is a very harsh road if the behavior does not match the claims."

And just who is the "self proclaimed guru" that you speak of? What "claims" are you referring to? I don't think you know what you are talking about. As I pointed out before, you are making alot of unfounded presumptions about things and about me that are not based in fact or reality. If you are trying to find some hypocrisy, you are barking up the wrong tree because I have nothing to claim.


You wrote: " “What idiotic horseshit” - this is a common advaita response that I have received from a couple of advaita self proclaimed gurus but most use the word bullshit."

First, I am NOT an "advaita self proclaimed guru". Not sort of, not maybe, not even remotely. I have nothing to do with advaita gurus in amy way. So your inferring or putting me in such a category is your first mistake. Second, you apparently also have some hang-up about the slang terms "horseshit" and "bullshit", which is somehow connected to your past or present affiliation with so-called spiritual teachers... and which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me. And so whatever you seem to think about me, based only upon my comments and your other associations with teachers, has no basis in reality.

In fact, your various unfounded presumptions and conclusions about me are actually more indicative of your own ignorance and ego. No matter what terms or slang I may employ, you simply cannot know where I am at. The fact that you think you do, is a type of ignorance. If you were able to see beyond the mere surface, then perhaps you would think differently.

That's about all I care to say with regard to your assumptions and comments.

Dear Tao:

1 -In my previous post I was simply pointing out that a statement like "You don NOT know how "everyone" perceives themselves" involves in itself a certain contradiction. It is identical to that involved in the statement "nothing can be affirmed about X"; the statement is in itself an affirmation about X.


2- >"(William:) " “What idiotic horseshit” - this is a common advaita response that I have received from a couple of advaita self proclaimed gurus but most use the word bullshit." "

> (Tao:) "First, I am NOT an "advaita self proclaimed guru". Not sort of, not maybe, not even remotely. I have nothing to do with advaita gurus in amy way. So your inferring or putting me in such a category is your first mistake"

William simply states that your rethoric and language are sometimes similar to those used by some (neo-)advaita teachers. For instance:
"Life is just happening. There is no one to be in control ... All of that is but an illusion, a myth, a kind of dream." and there are many more examples in what you wrote.

It is simply a fact that these expressions are often used by satsang's, advaita's, whatever, teachers or gurus. William's proposition never implies and affirms that you are such teacher or "put(s) you in such category". Again, he simply states the obvious that your words and expressions are sometimes very similar to those found in a certain literature.

Tao
“My responses to his rather "idiotic" comments do not equate to "ego-centered behavior" nor name-calling.”

Name calling from my point of view most certainty has its home in ego-centered behavior. When we resort to calling others obscene names we are projecting our own self-image and self doubt on to others. When we attack others we attack ourselves. Karma in action.


“How do you know? What is "ego-centered behavior? You seem to presume that you know something, and that based upon mere words, that you know where I am at.”

Calling someone an idiot that does not share your beliefs is presumption of the highest order. Name-calling is a defensive mechanism to project our inner doubts and fears on to others. Doubts at a subconscious level are very painful to the ego and name-calling is one way of dealing with that inner pain. Not the best way but one way.

“JP's rather absurd, ridiculous, and nonsensical comments and apparent confusion.”

Again comments like this towards others lack compassion and find their home in ego-centered behavior. My dialog with you may very well indeed find their home in ego centered behavior and lack compassion. If this is so then this is something I need to work on.

“Having "compassion" is irrelevant.”

Compassion is probably the best indicator of a person’s level of conscious awareness of reality. May want to check out what the Buddha and Jesus had to say about compassion. Don’t take my word for it.

“It has now become obvious that your intent is merely to fabricate distortions and false presumptions about me”

If even a fraction of this is true about my intentions then I do deeply apologize to you. I will meditate on this accusation you make towards me. But there may be some paranoid behavior on your part as the dreamer. And you may want to do the same and meditate on these statements you made about my intentions that interesting enough fall into the presumptions category on your part. This could be a learning opportunity for both of us dreamers.

What I am most surprised about Tao is your inability to see your anger and hostility you project towards others that do not share the same beliefs as you. I get this same type of anger and hostility from confirmed atheists, ultra skeptics, and religious fundamentalists. Ask yourself why the anger towards others rather than compassion, that do not agree with me?

Pointing out others ignorance and giving unsolicited advice is based in the ego and believe me if that is what I am doing here then I have much inner work ahead of me. To be truthful I suspect some of it is but having these dialogs into the mysteries of life has been my passion for a number of years.

Thank you Tao for participating in this dialog with me whomever me is or is not.

Also thanks Brian for this blog and the opportunity to dialog on your website with very interesting people or should I say dreamers. Much appreciated.

JP,

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. However, I don't quite altogether agree with you.

The statement that you quoted: "You don NOT know how "everyone" perceives themselves", is hardly contradictory. It simply says that one individual cannot possibly know how EVERYONE else perceives themselves. Everyone means every person in the world, and I dare say that it is most difficult, if not impossible, for someone to know just how even ONE other person perceives themselves, much less to know how EVERYONE in the world perceives themselves. That was the meaning of the statement.

You wrote: "William simply states that your rethoric and language are sometimes similar to those used by some (neo-)advaita teachers."

Yes, but there is more to it than that. He did more than just say that it was "similar", he more or less said and implied that I was acting and claiming to be an advaita guru. Which is false because there was no evidence of my making such a claim anywhere. In fact I clearly stated to the contrary.

You wrote: "It is simply a fact that these expressions are often used by satsang's, advaita's, whatever, teachers or gurus. William's proposition never implies and affirms that you are such..."

I beg to differ. William definitely stated and implied such claims. Furthermore, just becaus you or he seem to think my stements sound similar to others, is irrelevant to me. I speak and write from my own direct experience and insight, not by parroting other so-called "advaita gurus". No do I present myself as such.

You wrote: "...he simply states the obvious that your words and expressions are sometimes very similar to those found in a certain literature."

Again, he did more than just say that my expressions were "similar". Both his arguement, as well as yours, are basically on the wrong track. Yours and his quibbling is all based upon your own slanted perceptions, associations, preconceptions, presumptions, misinterpretations, biases, and so-called "advaita gurus", "literature", etc.

None of that has anything to do with myself and what I have expressed.

William,

You wrote: "Name calling from my point of view most certainty has its home in ego-centered behavior."

That's merely your own egoic response and reaction to words. The very fact that you actually judge somone elses words or anything as being "ego-centered behavior", is itself a manifestation of ego.


You wrote: "When we resort to calling others obscene names we are projecting our own self-image and self doubt on to others."

That is incorrect for several reasons. First, no such "obscene names" were used. (the terms idiot, moron, etc are not commonly regarded as "obscene") Second, you are presuming again. You simply do not know what others are really doing. You are actually only projecting your own conditioning and beliefs by assuming that you know what other are projecting. It seems to me that you must have certain unexamined preconceptions and conditioning that you use to judge how others express themselves. And at this point, I don't think you even truly understand what I am actually saying. And also, I am not very interested in endlessly going back and forth with you due to these various preconceptions, sanskaras, and beliefs that you hold.


You wrote: "When we attack others we attack ourselves. Karma in action."

Again, that is all completely based upon your particular preconception and belief about "Karma". In reality there is no one there to "attack", and no one being attacked. It is only in your mind that someone else is at fault... and "Karma" is merely just an idea. And also btw and fyi, the much bantered about term "karma" literally means ACTION, just simply action, not "Karma in action". There is no such "Karma in action". That phrase is redundant.


You wrote: "Calling someone an idiot that does not share your beliefs is presumption of the highest order."

Again, I have no such "beliefs" for anyone to not share in. You are again assuming that I have certain beliefs. I don't. You still don't get that. Thats because you are blinded by your own beliefs and preconceptions of how things are and should be. Calling someone an idiot is merely expressing my opinion about that person, it is not because I have some sort of different belief than they do, or vice versa. I don't think you quite understand this yet. Your think is all predcicated upon your own beliefs about haow things are and how they should or should not be. If you don't like the word "idiot" (or any wrod) and react to it, well that's your problem not mine.


You wrote: "Name-calling is a defensive mechanism to project our inner doubts and fears on to others."

Again, that is simply your own assumption, your own supposition, your own belief. Just because you think so, that does not make it so in all cases. Again, it is clear to me that you have various ideas and judgments about how things are, and about what motivates people, that are not necessarily true. And debating such issues over and over agin with people like you is rather boring to me. So I would kindly recommend that you pursue some honest Self-inquiry.


You wrote: "Doubts at a subconscious level are very painful to the ego and name-calling is one way of dealing with that inner pain."

Perhaps, but I am hardly in need of a lecture on psychology.... I just happen to have been awarded a degree in Psychology from Stanford University in the 1970s. So I am well educated in psychology.


You wrote: "Again comments like this towards others lack compassion and find their home in ego-centered behavior."


You wrote: "My dialog with you may very well indeed find their home in ego centered behavior and lack compassion. If this is so then this is something I need to work on.


You wrote: "Compassion is probably the best indicator of a person’s level of conscious awareness of reality. May want to check out what the Buddha and Jesus had to say about compassion."

First, be informed that I do not give a damn about what Gautama Buddha, or the fictitious "Jesus", may (supposedly) have had to say about it. Second, compassion is no such absolute indicator of "conscious awareness of reality". This is just another example of an unexamined assumption and belief that you hold.


You wrote: "If even a fraction of this is true about my intentions then I do deeply apologize to you."

No need for apologies. Just simply engage sincere Self-inquiry, and examine and thus release yourself from all the preconceptions and beliefs that you have about the way things are, or the way you think they should be.


You wrote: "...there may be some paranoid behavior on your part as the dreamer."

How would you know that I am a "dreamer" or dreaming? There simply is no dreamer. And under such circumstances as these, you cannot possibly know. And the paranoia is yours in your thinking that I am attacking someone.


You wrote; "And you may want to do the same and meditate..." "This could be a learning opportunity for both of us dreamers."

Thanks, but I do not meditate - I have no need to, nor am I a "dreamer".


You wrote: "...Tao is your inability to see your anger and hostility you project towards others that do not share the same beliefs as you."

Again, for the nth time, I have no such "beliefs". You just can't seem to grasp that yet. Nor do I have any such "anger and hostility". I say what I say only for effect, not becauue it represents any sort of negative feelings on my part towards others. You really do not understand where I am coming from. And I am not interested in repeatedly explaining it to you.


You wrote: "I get this same type of anger and hostility from confirmed atheists, ultra skeptics, and religious fundamentalists."

I am not any of the above.


You wrote: "Ask yourself why the anger towards others rather than compassion..."

Again, since you are judging only by words, the anger that you think you perceive, that you interpret in my words, can only be your own reactivity to those words.


You wrote: "... giving unsolicited advice is based in the ego and believe me if that is what I am doing here then I have much inner work ahead of me."

That is more or less what you are doing. However, regardless of "unsolicted" or not, the really important thing is preconceived beliefs and biases which significanlty limit your ability for real insight and wisdom. Beliefs are like a cloud or filter which obscures true knowledge and realization.


You wrote: "To be truthful I suspect some of it is but having these dialogs into the mysteries of life has been my passion for a number of years."

That's all well and good. I wish you the best. But remember, self-inquiry is no less important than dialog.


Tao

You certainty have a lot of time on your hands as do I.

"I just happen to have been awarded a degree in Psychology from Stanford University in the 1970s. So I am well educated in psychology"

this explains so much about you Tao. These are fluff degrees and every program that I know of these degrees are based in materialism.

I once was talking to a person that had just received her PhD from ucla in psychology and I asked her “are you an atheist?” and she said yes. I then asked what about those children that can speak a foreign language several hundred years old and they have had no exposure to that language. She stated I don’t know; some things we just don’t know and walked away. She was comfortable in her beliefs and was not going to budge.

if you want to move beyond that psychology degree from Stanford you may want to read "beyond the dream" by dr Thomas Hora. Or PAGL on the net.

I am betting you don’t read this book. You have what we in the consulting world call paradigm paralysis anyone that thinks that they are immune from this condition is delusional. We would not be doing the earth journey without this condition.

You state that words have no meanings but yet lecture me on the word karma. Below are some definitions of karma. You are right karma in action is confusing. Maybe karma defined would be better. But I suspect you will attack that term also.


1. Hinduism & Buddhism. The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny.
2. Fate; destiny.
3. Informal. A distinctive aura, atmosphere, or feeling: There's bad karma around the house today.

Got to go. This is going nowhere but loved the dialog. But I did give you a hot tip on a book. Why do I suspect you will trash me for that tip? Probably the way I stated the tip not exactly full of compassion. It is not so much what we say but how we say it.

Dear Tao:

My bad. You are correct to affirm that William suggested a new status for you as "self proclaimed guru". The second section of my post was based on a reading of his posts limited to portions revolving
around the word 'advaita' using the 'find' function. As far as my observation that some of your words and expressions are similar to those used by neo-advaita teachers and students, it is simply an observation. Never does it affirms anything about the origin, cause, etc. of the wisdom/knoledge that is behind them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.