Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Non Duality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27-04-2017, 05:49 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
Hmh ... obviously you are not considering all that I have written ... ?




That is not correct. It is not the resonance with the idea that introspection might work but the conclusion of rational analysis is that phenomena cannot exist the way they appear to exist. Therefore what makes them appear the way they appear must be a mental factor. So it is the resonance with logical thinking and rationality which entails that introspection is the appropriate method for validation of the philosophical view.


Correct.


No, there is no truth to be found in introspection and I do not have to defend it because I have certainty which does not depend on the view of others. And I do not condemn any criticism of it which is why I have written:


So any criticism is caused by non-resonance with logical thinking and rationality.

Certainty is threatening for so many painful deeds have been done in its name. People like me are some of the first to go to the wall in the name of certainty. No offense but I hope those who govern us are not people who have certainty.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27-04-2017, 08:56 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Certainty is threatening for so many painful deeds have been done in its name.
In the context of believing in truths, yes.
But the words I am using could reveal to a non-biased reader that what I call 'certainty' necessarily is empty of any sentiment of truth and that there is no claim of truth on my side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
People like me are some of the first to go to the wall in the name of certainty. No offense but I hope those who govern us are not people who have certainty.
I feel that what is unfamiliar for you is the experience of emptiness of truth. That is why when I am talking of non-belief you perceive me as if believing and claiming a truth and when I am talking of individual certainty that is empty of truth and cannot be transmitted to other persons you again are perceiving me as if talking about truths.
But your view and my view which may not be compatible in the sphere of conceptuality are both empty of any truth although from your perspective my view may be as inappropriate as your view is inappropriate from my perspective.
One of the decisive differences of our individual spheres obviously is that logic and rational thinking resonates with me but does not resonate with you. Then of course 'logic and rational thinking' does not exist inherently but exists only depending on imputations learned from specific conventions or 'schools of thought' and therefore is empty of truths.


It is funny that we both seem to agree that a sentment of truth is a trap (see title of the thread). So what then makes us disagree in the sphere of applying language? Obviously it is the conditioned processing of words that are mere visible forms empty of meaning from the outset (meanings being synthesized in our minds or brains upon seeing words as visible forms). your mind or your brain obviously cannot process words without being trapped by a sentiment of truth. And that hints at the factor of mind being active in your mind that you haven't yet identified (by means of meditative introspection). As long as this factor is active you will necessarily perceive all of my words as if being claims of truth although I am repeatedly saying that I do not claim any truth because everything is empty of truth.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27-04-2017, 10:20 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
In the context of believing in truths, yes.
But the words I am using could reveal to a non-biased reader that what I call 'certainty' necessarily is empty of any sentiment of truth and that there is no claim of truth on my side.


I feel that what is unfamiliar for you is the experience of emptiness of truth. That is why when I am talking of non-belief you perceive me as if believing and claiming a truth and when I am talking of individual certainty that is empty of truth and cannot be transmitted to other persons you again are perceiving me as if talking about truths.
But your view and my view which may not be compatible in the sphere of conceptuality are both empty of any truth although from your perspective my view may be as inappropriate as your view is inappropriate from my perspective.
One of the decisive differences of our individual spheres obviously is that logic and rational thinking resonates with me but does not resonate with you. Then of course 'logic and rational thinking' does not exist inherently but exists only depending on imputations learned from specific conventions or 'schools of thought' and therefore is empty of truths.


It is funny that we both seem to agree that a sentment of truth is a trap (see title of the thread). So what then makes us disagree in the sphere of applying language? Obviously it is the conditioned processing of words that are mere visible forms empty of meaning from the outset (meanings being synthesized in our minds or brains upon seeing words as visible forms). your mind or your brain obviously cannot process words without being trapped by a sentiment of truth. And that hints at the factor of mind being active in your mind that you haven't yet identified (by means of meditative introspection). As long as this factor is active you will necessarily perceive all of my words as if being claims of truth although I am repeatedly saying that I do not claim any truth because everything is empty of truth.

So far you say your certainty is based on introspection. That is so easily challenged. Do you know and have overcome any conditioning you may have that could be distorting the results of your introspection? Even if you think you know that how could you possibly know what may be hidden from you? It's hidden!!!

The only way out of that trap is to transcend the idea that anything can be known with certainty.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27-04-2017, 03:43 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
So far you say your certainty is based on introspection. That is so easily challenged.
you may challange any conceptual idea but you can't challenge another individual's experience since you can't know it. you may be confusing the concept arising in your mind when seeing words with the experience expressed with these words which nevertheless remains hidden for you because it is not your experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Do you know and have overcome any conditioning you may have that could be distorting the results of your introspection?
Introspection is only one aspect to validate a view that can be expressed with words.
Let me explain:
First there is familiarization with the appropriate view, then - provided there is resonance with this rational view and its rationality - there is appropriate rational analysis based on that view. Introspection only provides the missing link to realize what it is that makes inner or outer phenomena innately appear to exist in a way they don't exist.
So it is the realization based on rational analysis that undermines innate truth habits, not introspection. Having come to this realization one can authentically say that there aren't any truths and this authenticity is based on experience as a result of meditative rational analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Even if you think you know that how could you possibly know what may be hidden from you? It's hidden!!!


The only way out of that trap is to transcend the idea that anything can be known with certainty.
From your expression 'the idea that anything can be known with certainty' I conclude that you hold a view which is subject to innate truth habits. My view is free from such habits. The certainty I mentioned is not conventional 'knowing something'. The certainty I mentioned is empty of truth and empty of both, subject and object.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27-04-2017, 04:52 PM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
you may challange any conceptual idea but you can't challenge another individual's experience since you can't know it. you may be confusing the concept arising in your mind when seeing words with the experience expressed with these words which nevertheless remains hidden for you because it is not your experience.

Introspection is only one aspect to validate a view that can be expressed with words.
Let me explain:
First there is familiarization with the appropriate view, then - provided there is resonance with this rational view and its rationality - there is appropriate rational analysis based on that view. Introspection only provides the missing link to realize what it is that makes inner or outer phenomena innately appear to exist in a way they don't exist.
So it is the realization based on rational analysis that undermines innate truth habits, not introspection. Having come to this realization one can authentically say that there aren't any truths and this authenticity is based on experience as a result of meditative rational analysis.


From your expression 'the idea that anything can be known with certainty' I conclude that you hold a view which is subject to innate truth habits. My view is free from such habits. The certainty I mentioned is not conventional 'knowing something'. The certainty I mentioned is empty of truth and empty of both, subject and object.

Certain of what? Lets see just how scary this certainty is.

:)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27-04-2017, 05:02 PM
Lumin Lumin is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 80
  Lumin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
So far you say your certainty is based on introspection. That is so easily challenged. Do you know and have overcome any conditioning you may have that could be distorting the results of your introspection? Even if you think you know that how could you possibly know what may be hidden from you? It's hidden!!!

The only way out of that trap is to transcend the idea that anything can be known with certainty.
I agree with you iamit, cause introspection/reflection is where answers are found. The outside only reflects where one needs to look for to find them inside ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 27-04-2017, 10:33 PM
FallingLeaves FallingLeaves is online now
Master
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,385
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminarium
I agree with you iamit, cause introspection/reflection is where answers are found. The outside only reflects where one needs to look for to find them inside ourselves.

but gasp you can't get any kind of consensus for that sort of thing, how do you survive without everyone telling you what we should all agree about?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28-04-2017, 05:13 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Certain of what? Lets see just how scary this certainty is.

:)
What I call 'certainty' is an experience of imperturbability.

Rational analysis of one phenomenon/object entails experience of its emptiness (of inherent existence/truth) and once one phenomenon/object is perceived as emptiness all phenomena/objects can be perceived as emptinesses.
"all phenomena/objects" includes oneself, i.e. that which is called 'I'. Actually applying this rational view - provided there is resonance - one usually starts with oneself before turning the attention to other phenomena/objects.

As a side note:
Actually when the emptiness of inherent existence and truth of oneself is experienced as a result of rational analysis then natural meditative stability is spontaneously present. This then may function as direct introduction to the ground of being (aka dzogchen) if - and only if - one has been familiarized with the conceptual view of the ground of being before. This however does not mean that this rational view of emptiness of inherent existence and its analytical application is the only way of being directly introduced to the ground of being which is atemporal and non-personal awareness - it is just one way depending on the individual's capacity and inclination.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 28-04-2017, 10:59 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
What I call 'certainty' is an experience of imperturbability.

Rational analysis of one phenomenon/object entails experience of its emptiness (of inherent existence/truth) and once one phenomenon/object is perceived as emptiness all phenomena/objects can be perceived as emptinesses.
"all phenomena/objects" includes oneself, i.e. that which is called 'I'. Actually applying this rational view - provided there is resonance - one usually starts with oneself before turning the attention to other phenomena/objects.

As a side note:
Actually when the emptiness of inherent existence and truth of oneself is experienced as a result of rational analysis then natural meditative stability is spontaneously present. This then may function as direct introduction to the ground of being (aka dzogchen) if - and only if - one has been familiarized with the conceptual view of the ground of being before. This however does not mean that this rational view of emptiness of inherent existence and its analytical application is the only way of being directly introduced to the ground of being which is atemporal and non-personal awareness - it is just one way depending on the individual's capacity and inclination.

What are you certain (unperturbed) about?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 28-04-2017, 02:34 PM
dream jo dream jo is offline
Master
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: sea dream u cud say
Posts: 22,349
  dream jo's Avatar
yep its reed lab on vovers u ge thru pots i wz crt on ths 1 th prnt it so smal sou cnt sea it 2 get u 2 by ezspevs 1 insted of 1 u wnt 2get free gft
__________________
dream jo


i dream dreams all dreams
🌟🌟🌙🌙☔☔🌆🌆🌁😈😎😒💋💑💑💑💌🍨🍩🍔🌟🌟🌟✴🍩🍔
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums