Practice

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by sentient

Of course one can.
When you have the “One Spirit” experience with another person - that is exactly what you both experience simultaneously.
You directly know each other’s hearts and minds at that point.

Does that mean you can sit in judgment of the quality of thier experience of the end of the spiritual search, of what that is like for them, and say that is not as full or blissful as yours? I think not

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

I wanna play, Jyotir!!!



OMG!!!!!!!!

Does that mean you can sit in judgment of the quality of thier experience of the end of the spiritual search, of what that is like for them, and say that is not as full or blissful as yours? I think not

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hello Iamit,

It seems that your (imo) self-contradictory positions are becoming increasingly untenable, or else an attachment to them in spite of that has become irresistible.

Variations in ‘characters’ are nothing other than assimilated experiences of individuated oneness, which in principle accounts for the factor of differentiation.
If we can ’account for it’, it means we can identify it/ know it in some measure.

If we cannot know the quality of experience of another - and yet still call it “different characters” - it means there is in fact no oneness operative in the individual, by which access is enabled to know that differentiation, meaning there is nothing to account for in terms of “characters“.... we are then experiencing reality separatively by a superficial objective cognition, e.g., duality. That is the case where we cannot know by Oneness/identity, the experiences of others as a differentiation of Self, but only the superficial appearance of difference alone in and through that ignorance of Self, which is a concentration of some consciousness, albeit restrictive.


So are you proposing that we should remain in dualistic perception to account for 'different characters', or that Oneness is homogeneous and individuals have no access to it consciously, e.g., Oneness necessarily means no differentiation? One, both, either, neither?

Further, whether we describe “accounting for” or ‘purification’ as a volitional process of concentration of attribute or focus, they both describe some deliberate activity that by attempt at consistent orientation - especially that of more comprehensive knowing - could be called ‘practice’. This is what yoga is and does. It's that simple.


~ J

Does that mean you can sit in judgment of the quality of thier experience of the end of the spiritual search, of what that is like for them, and say that is not as full or blissful as yours? I think not

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by iamthat

To repeat Ramana Maharshi:

The ultimate Truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said.

This is a state of Being, and nothing to do with the mind or the heart.

Peace

Some seekers experience resonance with the concept All is One by the mind. What you know of thier experience to judge it is nothing.

[Iamit]

This assault on the individual is so typical of the arrogance of totalitarians who are often traditionalists. Luckily this is just a forum. You would not like it if they were in power/control.

Turn up the volume whenever they raise thier heads or they might get some power/control and from history we have seen where that leads.

:) :)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Does that mean you can sit in judgment of the quality of thier experience of the end of the spiritual search, of what that is like for them, and say that is not as full or blissful as yours? I think not

Nope, it just means that taken over all, what you say to me makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
But please do enjoy your blissful and peaceful state.

This assault on the individual is so typical of the arrogance of totalitarians who are often traditionalists. Luckily this is just a forum. You would not like it if they were in power/control.

Oh my...so we disagreed with him again, thus we are all 'totalitarians' again now.
Sorry to say this but needs to be said, this one has obvious mental issues. Please get some professional help, my friend.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Nope, it just means that taken over all, what you say to me makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
But please do enjoy your blissful and peaceful state.

Pleased to hear you allow people to be different without sarcasm:)

Very patronising and generous of you but thats typical of TA.

Dont enjoy it too much, you might get some power to inflict your tradition and that would be disaterous for us and eventually for you :)

:)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Pleased to hear you allow people to be different without sarcasm:)

Very patronising and generous of you but thats typical of TA.

Dont enjoy it too much, you might get some power to inflict your tradition and that would be disaterous for us and eventually for you :)

:)

NO! It is not 'typical of TA'...it is typical of ME! SHIVANI! the PERSON and NOT the philosophy! get it?

I am NOT the path I follow, so stop making that distinction!

"Sarcasm" is pretty much my 'middle name' although but it does get replaced with "Hubris" occasionally, depending on the object of my sarcasm.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

NO! It is not 'typical of TA'...it is typical of ME! SHIVANI! the PERSON and NOT the philosophy! get it?

I am NOT the path I follow, so stop making that distinction!

"Sarcasm" is pretty much my 'middle name' although but it does get replaced with "Hubris" occasionally, depending on the object of my sarcasm.

Yes that does sound moderate :) I would not like to meet you in a dark alley:) unless it was illuminated by your bonfire of NA books :)

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes that does sound moderate :) I would not like to meet you in a dark alley:) unless it was illuminated by your bonfire of NA books :)

This has NOTHING to do with my path and 'my bonfire of NA books'...I am totally being MYSELF! WITHOUT the philosophy. Fuuuuu----

I don't know who you enjoy reading the most, George Orwell or Ray Bradbury...maybe you're a combination of both!

This sounds like a cross between "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451", with a bit of "Brave New World" thrown in for good measure.

I couldn't give a s*** about NA books!...not one...flying...pig! I wouldn't waste a match to be honest!

...and yep, I'm the type you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley...fully agree with you there.