Observer vs Observed

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Two things about that.

1 - It's an argument against the possility of realization/enlightenment.
2 - It considers awareness a thing of mind-body vs. Existence, Consciousness, Bliss.

Not really. It is simply stating that the highest state of consciousness attainable by a human being could still be relatively insignificant. Enlightenment is a state of consciousness, nothing to do with the mind or body. It does not seem unreasonable to consider that there may be Beings whose consciousness is so far beyond ours that even the most evolved humans would barely register with them.

As a student of esoteric philosophy I have no problem with the idea that Masters such as the Christ or the Buddha will move on to a higher turn of the spiral of evolution, to continue their journeys in spheres of consciousness we cannot begin to comprehend.

Peace

Originally Posted by davidsun

Not quite - Guatama and Jesus lived and 'saw' and 'spoke about' things in a 2600 and 2000 (respectively) year ago context. Besides, many have interpreted and understood what they pointed to in very limited and often doofey fashion, IMO.

On top of that you strike me as being quite enamored of and so 'championing' Advaita-philosophy related perpectives and statements which I consider to be far from being the best (by me that is) representations and expressions of a truly 'Non-Dualistic' philosophy.

Your saying that you don't see anything 'beyond' that sort of thing and therefore having concluded that there are no more "mountains for the bear to go over" (and therefore open-mindedly engage in discussing as possibly being additionally informative) is exactly the 'point' I am making.

In case you wish to 'get into' the kinds of issues I raise, let me reiterate my previous criticism (which may have gone 'over your head' since you obviously think what you 'see' and understand is on the level of Jesus and Gautama) that your choosing to 'i'dentify with 'just' (i.e. merely) be a 'simple' Guy is quite a questionable kind of 'humility' - IMO, we have to first 'get' beyond that if we are to begin to have a mutually meaning-full conversation.

Do I think what I "'see' and understand is on the level of Jesus and Gautama"? No.

Do I think I'm enlightened? No.

Do I think I'll attain enlightenment? Who knows.

Do I engage in practices to facilitate enlightenment? Yes.

Have I benefited from such practices? Yes.

What practices? Basically a broad mix of those outlined in Vivekananda's Four Yogas but not necessarily exclusively as outlined in the tradition. For instance I practice Tibetan Buddhist meditation techniques and I also include the broader category of consciousness studies into Jnana along with the traditional Vedantic studies of self inquiry.

Do I think there are other paths outside that which I follow which can achieve the same end? Yes.

Concerning enlightenment, I find this a good read.

https://liveanddare.com/spiritual-enlightenment/

1 - It is permanent (cannot be lost once attained)
2 - It involves transcending the ego
3 - It is the end of all forms of mental and emotional suffering

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Concerning enlightenment, ...
1 - It is permanent (cannot be lost once attained)
2 - It involves transcending the ego
3 - It is the end of all forms of mental and emotional suffering

IMO, your 'mind' is closed to considering the possible merits of 'views' other than these, such as that mental and emotional 'suffering' (as you call it) are 'grist for the mill' of soul-maturation, that 'ending' them would essentially render a soul 'cocooned' (in ways which preclude further psychospiritual growth-n-development), for instance, which is the case with 'you', IMO.

Your views are indeed broader, because less 'dogmatic', than most belief-followers in the 'traditions' you are sympatico with - but, in my view, they are are not broad enough to 'allow' you relate to and integrate the validity and value of truths/views other than those put forth in the context of said traditions.

Let me know and show me some evidence in this regard if and when you wish to relate to my views and understandings pertaining to Life (wherein the idea of and pursuit of 'enlightenment', for one example, is just an 'imaginary goose' chase).

Originally Posted by davidsun

IMO, your 'mind' is closed to considering the possible merits of 'views' other than these, such as that mental and emotional 'suffering' (as you call it) are 'grist for the mill' of soul-maturation, that 'ending' them would essentially render a soul 'cocooned' (in ways which preclude further psychospiritual growth-n-development), for instance, which is the case with 'you', IMO.

Your views are indeed broader, because less 'dogmatic', than most belief-followers in the 'traditions' you are sympatico with - but, in my view, they are are not broad enough to 'allow' you relate to and integrate the validity and value of truths/views other than those put forth in the context of said traditions.

Let me know and show me some evidence in this regard if and when you wish to relate to my views and understandings pertaining to Life (wherein the idea of and pursuit of 'enlightenment', for one example, is just an 'imaginary goose' chase).

I'm more than happy to have enthusiastic discussion about what I perceive non-dualism is and isn't, however that doesn't mean I think you or anyone should change or realign beliefs to match what I subscribe to.

As for my mind, that is the entire point. It's not a matter whether it's open or closed but to what degree it's even relevant. Whether it's the be-all and end-all or just a useful instrument.

As for mental and emotional suffering for the purpose of soul maturation, been there, done that and for the better part of 60 years, and you know what? I've come further in the last eight months than all the previous decades. I can honestly say by and large I'm at some level of bliss most of the time. Just to be clear it's not what most think of when bliss is mentioned. It's more of an inner silence. Not being caught up in the throws of experience but still having deep and rich experience.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if---

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

[davidsun]

Great soul-'trip' JASG!

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

Cool! Except triumph and disasters are real experiences, IMO.

That's like someone (like/liking Robert Adams' shtick) saying things "I am you and you are me, there is no difference!" IMO.

That's the (serious!) quibble I have with your and others' versions of 'Non-Dualism. Relating to the above 'issue', 'triumphs' and 'disasters' are vital/vitally necessary 'elements' of the Flow of THE ONE's Life, without which the ONE would never make any 'flow-process' progress towards ITs' greater and greater in terms of ongoing Love and Joy Flowering and Fruition. Without the real 'disaster' experienced by the dinosaurs, mammals and humans would (probably) not be around, not here at least.

This is what your version (brand?) of Non-Dualism 'simply' obfuscates - at least it does, in my view. My speculation in this regard: maybe because you 'wish' not to 'dream' about such things, maybe because they result in your experiencing 'conflicting' emotions?

Originally Posted by davidsun

Great soul-'trip' JASG!


Cool! Except triumph and disasters are real experiences, IMO.

That's like someone (like/liking Robert Adams' shtick) saying things "I am you and you are me, there is no difference!" IMO.

That's the (serious!) quibble I have with your and others' versions of 'Non-Dualism. Relating to the above 'issue', 'triumphs' and 'disasters' are vital/vitally necessary 'elements' of the Flow of THE ONE's Life, without which the ONE would never make any 'flow-process' progress towards ITs' greater and greater in terms of ongoing Love and Joy Flowering and Fruition. Without the real 'disaster' experienced by the dinosaurs, mammals and humans would (probably) not be around, not here at least.

This is what your version (brand?) of Non-Dualism 'simply' obfuscates - at least it does, in my view. My speculation in this regard: maybe because you 'wish' not to 'dream' about such things, maybe because they result in your experiencing 'conflicting' emotions?

So if I don't take (excessive) pride in triumph nor anger, resentment, regret or hate in disaster that's a bad thing?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

So if I don't take (excessive) pride in triumph nor anger, resentment, regret or hate in disaster that's a bad thing?

No. Its that the poem you espouse asserts that 'triumph' etc. are 'imposters' - i.e. deceitful/meaningless 'illusions'. There is no way I can have a real conversation with someone who denies the reality of experience.

Originally Posted by davidsun

No. Its that the poem you espouse asserts that 'triumph' etc. are 'imposters' - i.e. deceitful/meaningless 'illusions'. There is no way I can have a real conversation with someone who denies the reality of experience.

They are. It's the second arrow Buddha spoke of. It's the affective value laden meaning we attach to events. It's how much we personalize things that aren't necessarily personal.

It's about experiencing things how they are and not how we want them to be or how they don't measure up to our conception of how things should be.

Originally Posted by davidsun

IMO, your 'mind' is closed to considering the possible merits of 'views' other than these, such as that mental and emotional 'suffering' (as you call it) are 'grist for the mill' of soul-maturation, that 'ending' them would essentially render a soul 'cocooned' (in ways which preclude further psychospiritual growth-n-development), for instance, which is the case with 'you', IMO.

Case in point. How about all those rioters expressing their emotional suffering and furthering the maturation of the collective soul? I would say this is de-evolution, not evolution. They identify with, at best, and unproductive narrative and then act it out. They are caught up in a nightmare they can't escape.

Dare I say we'd all be better off if they took that portion of the poem to heart.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Dare I say we'd all be better off if they took that portion of the poem to heart.

They, yes ... at least. maybe. But not 'you', who 'hides' (IMO) behind such 'pontif'ications.

Originally Posted by davidsun

They, yes ... at least. maybe. But not 'you', who 'hides' (IMO) behind such 'pontif'ications.

I do take it to heart and that's why I've been practicing various meditation techniques the past decade. That's precisely their purpose.