A Powerful Lesson

[JustASimpleGuy]

https://youtu.be/kHRmFtzoaYg?t=260

[JustASimpleGuy]

Here's my experience about one's true nature and keeping mind centered on It.

It's not necessary and in fact keeping one's mind centered on awareness defeats the purpose of meditation. It's the classic observer trap and just a more benign version of ego.

I like the way I once heard Jon Kabat-Zinn describe it as resting in awareness. That was quite a while back, probably 6 years, and I didn't understand its real significance then but it stuck with me and I incorporated that technique into my formal practice.

https://youtu.be/5TeWvf-nfpA?list=PLN9BVzcnCCjNXOJVeisydVp1WpVnPNokg&t=1178

If practiced properly and to some degree mastered it is experiencing non-dual awareness. It's escaping mind, ego and meditation's observer trap and is in fact the sought-after meditative state.

[davidsun]

If practiced properly and to some degree mastered it is experiencing non-dual awareness. It's escaping mind, ego and meditation's observer trap and is in fact the sought-after meditative state.
This may seem to be an impossibility to you because so many (including you?) axiomatically assume and believe it to be absolutely true, but have you thought about the 'what if' possibility that you call "awareness" or "non-dual awareness" isn't the 'core' or 'base' state of Atman (or Brahman or God or Being)?

I mean, what if (any kind of) "awareness" is just a feature, i.e. a 'faculty' or 'power', of Brahman (the Soul of the Self of (all) Being?

The way I 'see' IT, the core Essence of Brahman (God, Soul, whatever you want to call IT) is Creativity (anything and everything, 'you' included, is a 'manifestation' of Creativity), and Creativity is functionally co-activated by the 'operation' of Mind and Spirit - analogous to the way that 'manifestations' of Light, or Light Rays, are functional expression of an an electromagnetic 'wave', a coordinated wave of Electricity and Magnetism.

Just as there can't be 'Light', or a Light Wave, without the co-active Presence of Electricity and Magnetism, there can't be Brahman or Being without the co-active Presence of Mind and Spirit.

If I am correct about this (note: I acknowledge that I might not be!), then your, or anyone else (such as those in your video), axiomaticallly assuming and thereby making "awareness" (or "non-dual awareness") a fundamental, core or base, 'pillar' of your philosophy and thinking :smile: that you can therefore just dispense with 'mind' or an 'observer' positionality doesn't make sense.

Though, as in the case of any other experienced 'state', it may of course be subjectively projected and so 'hypnogogic-ally' experienced (see https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321070.php), it strikes me as being a questionable proposition in terms of the actual truth, to say the very least.

[JustASimpleGuy]

This may seem to be an impossibility to you because so many (including you?) axiomatically assume and believe it to be absolutely true, but have you thought about the 'what if' possibility that you call "awareness" or "non-dual awareness" isn't the 'core' or 'base' state of Atman (or Brahman or God or Being)?

I mean, what if (any kind of) "awareness" is just a feature, i.e. a 'faculty' or 'power', of Brahman (the Soul of the Self of (all) Being?

The way I 'see' IT, the core Essence of Brahman (God, Soul, whatever you want to call IT) is Creativity (anything and everything, 'you' included, is a 'manifestation' of Creativity), and Creativity is functionally co-activated by the 'operation' of Mind and Spirit - analogous to the way that 'manifestations' of Light, or Light Rays, are functional expression of an an electromagnetic 'wave', a coordinated wave of Electricity and Magnetism.

Just as there can't be 'Light', or a Light Wave, without the co-active Presence of Electricity and Magnetism, there can't be Brahman or Being without the co-active Presence of Mind and Spirit.

If I am correct about this (note: I acknowledge that I might not be!), then your, or anyone else (such as those in your video), axiomaticallly assuming and thereby making "awareness" (or "non-dual awareness") a fundamental, core or base, 'pillar' of your philosophy and thinking :smile: that you can therefore just dispense with 'mind' or an 'observer' positionality doesn't make sense.

Though, as in the case of any other experienced 'state', it may of course be subjectively projected and so 'hypnogogic-ally' experienced (see https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321070.php), it strikes me as being a questionable proposition in terms of the actual truth, to say the very least.

Well, this is the core of non-dualism. Also luminaries in philosophy of mind such as David Chalmers (he coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness) and physics such as Sir Roger Penrose believe consciousness is fundamental.

So you can theorize all you want but to be perfectly frank it doesn't hold the tiniest drop of water compared to thousands of years of philosophy dedicated to the subject, and I find it odd you are constantly attacking it, almost like it's a threat to your own belief.

[davidsun]

Well, this is the core of non-dualism. Also luminaries in philosophy of mind such as David Chalmers (he coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness) and physics such as Sir Roger Penrose believe consciousness is fundamental.

So you can theorize all you want but to be perfectly frank it doesn't hold the tiniest drop of water compared to thousands of years of philosophy dedicated to the subject, and I find it odd you are constantly attacking it, almost like it's a threat to your own belief.
Thousands of years? People thought that pleasing 'God' required 'sacrifices' for thousands of years. Give me a break in terms of logic! You want to label a challenging question and philosophical disgreement as an 'attack'? That's on you, fella.

P.S. In case I didn't make the implications of the logic of my proposed world-view completely clear, according to that world-view, there could/would be no awareness (of any kind)unless a 'mind' or mental faculty was pre-operative.

[JustASimpleGuy]

P.S. In case I didn't make the implications of the logic of my proposed world-view completely clear, according to that world-view, there could/would be no awareness (of any kind)unless a 'mind' or mental faculty was pre-operative.

I get it all to well. You reject the cosmos and settle for crumbs and hang it all on your treatise. That's fine for you but I'm not interested in that debate or attempting to convince you otherwise.

[Moondance]

Well, this is the core of non-dualism. Also luminaries in philosophy of mind such as David Chalmers (he coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness) and physics such as Sir Roger Penrose believe consciousness is fundamental.

Hi JASG

I’m enjoying many of your posts here. But I would take issue with the statement that ‘consciousness is fundamental’ is the core tenet of non-dualism. True enough, it IS the core of Advaita Vedanta. Understandably people often assume that Advaita and non-duality are synonyms (a-dvaita literally means non-duality.) Yet although Advaita certainly IS non-dualism, non-dualism is not necessarily Advaita Vedanta. The term (non-duality) can be applied to a wider domain of traditions, sub-traditions and philosophical perspectives.

A nondualist/absolute monist outlook is simply to attribute Oneness/not-two-ness or singleness to reality (it’s not necessarily to formulate what the ’substance’ or essence of that Oneness is.) Pantheism, for instance, is the view that everything is God/Nature. Buddhist, Madhyamaka describes the nature of reality as Emptiness - which is inseparable from all conceivable forms and conditions. This is sometimes interpreted as a monist view although Buddhist deny any form of ultimate reality. Taoism is similar to Pantheism in that it describes the primacy of a singular unifying force. Nondualistic thought can be found in much Christian mysticism and Neoplatonism. Even materialism can be described in nondualistic (or absolute monist - ultimately the same thing) terms:

“Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

[JustASimpleGuy]

Hi JASG

I’m enjoying many of your posts here. But I would take issue with the statement that ‘consciousness is fundamental’ is the core tenet of non-dualism. True enough, it IS the core of Advaita Vedanta. Understandably people often assume that Advaita and non-duality are synonyms (a-dvaita literally means non-duality.) Yet although Advaita certainly IS non-dualism, non-dualism is not necessarily Advaita Vedanta. The term (non-duality) can be applied to a wider domain of traditions, sub-traditions and philosophical perspectives.

A nondualist/absolute monist outlook is simply to attribute Oneness/not-two-ness or singleness to reality (it’s not necessarily to formulate what the ’substance’ or essence of that Oneness is.) Pantheism, for instance, is the view that everything is God/Nature. Buddhist, Madhyamaka describes the nature of reality as Emptiness - which is inseparable from all conceivable forms and conditions. This is sometimes interpreted as a monist view although Buddhist deny any form of ultimate reality. Taoism is similar to Pantheism in that it describes the primacy of a singular unifying force. Nondualistic thought can be found in much Christian mysticism and Neoplatonism. Even materialism can be described in nondualistic (or absolute monist - ultimately the same thing) terms:

“Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Point taken although when I think it through I'm hard-pressed to find a unifying One outside of pure being, and that seems to point to some fundamental consciousness or awareness. Even the mystics of many traditions speak of looking within and identifying the core of their being as the Divine, and I'm fairly certain that is awareness/consciousness.

It's interesting because what led me down this path was not spirituality per se, but philosophy of mind and physics. Advaita Vedanta came along about nine years after that journey began and I had already come to that conclusion in my own mind.

I'd also suggest Buddhist emptiness is that state of consciousness, choiceless awareness, pure experience minus anything to be experienced (maya).

EDIT: And yes, it's a bold statement and to me why it contains so much power. It's a tangible unifying aspect between the finite and the Infinite. Something that cannot only be understand but also experience.

[Moondance]

Point taken although when I think it through I'm hard-pressed to find a unifying One outside of pure being, and that seems to point to some fundamental consciousness or awareness. Even the mystics of many traditions speak of looking within and identifying the core of their being as the Divine, and I'm fairly certain that is awareness/consciousness.

It's interesting because what led me down this path was not spirituality per se, but philosophy of mind and physics. Advaita Vedanta came along about nine years after that journey began and I had already come to that conclusion in my own mind.

I'd also suggest Buddhist emptiness is that state of consciousness, choiceless awareness, pure experience minus anything to be experienced (maya).

EDIT: And yes, it's a bold statement and to me why it contains so much power. It's a tangible unifying aspect between the finite and the Infinite. Something that cannot only be understand but also experience.

In a profound kensho shift (of just over twenty years ago) I became utterly convinced of the incomprehensibility of separation. At that time I had no interest in spirituality and had never heard of non-duality or Advaita and was therefore free of any spiritual conditioning. The kensho ‘incident’ didn’t come with a ’all is consciousness/subjective’ or ‘all is energy/objective’ option. It was simply the sense of the absoluteness and sovereignty of THIS, this something-ness (whatever THIS might be.)

Now I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what we might speculate as the fundamental ‘essence’ of reality - I don’t really know. So I’m fairly neutral about it - I’ve found that when we deeply dig into it, our concepts eventually start to fail us. Take consciousness for instance. What do we mean by it. Is there a difference between consciousness and the patterns/forms/manifestations it presents? Or is it of One Taste? If it’s the first then it is clearly not non-dual. If it’s the second then where is the basis for insisting it is consciousness (as opposed to what??)

Can you see what I’m getting at here. If all is of One taste - if it’s just SO - then to call it EITHER consciousness (OR energy or whatever else) is arbitrary - it simply IS.

Here’s a kind of koan to ponder: Imagine that everything in the cosmos is yellow. Every object, form, process and event is yellow. Every thought, memory, idea and story is yellow. EVERYTHING is yellow with no exceptions…

There would be NO yellow.

If everything is consciousness… there is no consciousness.

There is just ______________________

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

Let us not look at consciousness as static.

Recognise it as a vibration, a pulse, in incessant dynamic stillness.

***

[JustASimpleGuy]

In a profound kensho shift (of just over twenty years ago) I became utterly convinced of the incomprehensibility of separation. At that time I had no interest in spirituality and had never heard of non-duality or Advaita and was therefore free of any spiritual conditioning. The kensho ‘incident’ didn’t come with a ’all is consciousness/subjective’ or ‘all is energy/objective’ option. It was simply the sense of the absoluteness and sovereignty of THIS, this something-ness (whatever THIS might be.)

Now I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what we might speculate as the fundamental ‘essence’ of reality - I don’t really know. So I’m fairly neutral about it - I’ve found that when we deeply dig into it, our concepts eventually start to fail us. Take consciousness for instance. What do we mean by it. Is there a difference between consciousness and the patterns/forms/manifestations it presents? Or is it of One Taste? If it’s the first then it is clearly not non-dual. If it’s the second then where is the basis for insisting it is consciousness (as opposed to what??)

Can you see what I’m getting at here. If all is of One taste - if it’s just SO - then to call it EITHER consciousness (OR energy or whatever else) is arbitrary - it simply IS.

Here’s a kind of koan to ponder: Imagine that everything in the cosmos is yellow. Every object, form, process and event is yellow. Every thought, memory, idea and story is yellow. EVERYTHING is yellow with no exceptions…

There would be NO yellow.

If everything is consciousness… there is no consciousness.

There is just ______________________


I understand. It fails before language. It fails before conceptualization. It fails when one goes beyond simply Being. To conceptualize It, to label It, to even make an attempt diminishes It. Brings It into the finite.

From our perspective, our anchor in what we experience as objective reality, there is experience. Pure experience. Detached. Dispassionate. Empty. I'd 'label' that awareness or consciousness.

However it does seem to me labels are a necessary means of teaching, instructing or relating in a meaningful manner before a concept is understood and assimilated.

Hence the plethora of paradoxes that discussions like this about It brings to the table. :wink:

I started reading a book titled "The Seven Great Untenables" which examines the "discussions" over the nature of maya between the Advaitins and Visistadvaitins. This goes to your musings about conscious and it's relation to objective reality and two opposing views. At this point it's too deep from a Vedantic philosophical perspective for my understanding so I put it aside. I'll return at some point in the future when my understanding is further developed.

[JustASimpleGuy]

***

Let us not look at consciousness as static.

Recognise it as a vibration, a pulse, in incessant dynamic stillness.

***

From a spiritual perspective I am satisfied with It just Is.

From a materialist perspective Orch OR is intriguing and it's possible Penrose and Hameroff are on to something, even if their hypothesis is flawed. It's a very radical interpretation of collapse of the wave function, positing collapse isn't caused by (conscious) observation but in fact is an objective reduction caused by the structure of space-time and results in an instance of consciousness which is then superimposed via quantum entanglement within microtubules.

It's a staggeringly bold and creative hypothesis regardless whether it's ever verified or falsified via observation. Hmm, observations on observation. LOL!

[Moondance]

From our perspective, our anchor in what we experience as objective reality, there is experience. Pure experience. Detached. Dispassionate. Empty. I'd 'label' that awareness or consciousness.

However it does seem to me labels are a necessary means of teaching, instructing or relating in a meaningful manner before a concept is understood and assimilated.

I totally agree with this. Awareness or consciousness (alongside other designations such as being, reality, THIS, tao, source etc.) are simply placeholders for what is ultimately inexplicable - and yet utterly obvious.

[davidsun]

I get it all to well. You reject the cosmos and settle for crumbs and hang it all on your treatise. That's fine for you but I'm not interested in that debate or attempting to convince you otherwise.
:thumbsup:

I 'get' that you, among others (although hopefully not everyone reading thread), are not 'interested' and so choose not to entertain and discuss the Life-related (IMO) issues that I raise here.

Requoting a relevant (I think) passage from my book (which predates my treatise by 20 years - I mention this so you and others know that this is a function of a Life-long 'calling' to address the causes of our current 'human condition'):

"Many who consider themselves ‘true followers’ of Vedic teachings therefore proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life’s true richness and beneficence. Just as would happen if college-aspiring youngsters decided not to be involved with what was offered in their school curriculum because they judged it ‘inferior’ to ‘higher’ learning, such individuals fail to obtain and dispense educational benefits, accessible in their present context, which are prerequisite to further growth and development. (If you are one such, take the following to heart: 'This phenomenal creation, which is both ephemeral and eternal, is like a tree, but having its seed above in the Highest and its ramifications on this earth below…. When the Supreme Lord enters a body or leaves it, He gathers [the] senses together and travels on with them, as the wind gathers perfume while passing through the flowers. He is the perception of the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the smell, yea and of the mind also; and the enjoyment of the things which they perceive is also His.' The Bhagavad Gita, 15:1-10.)"

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
From our perspective, our anchor in what we experience as objective reality, there is experience. Pure experience. Detached. Dispassionate. Empty. I'd 'label' that awareness or consciousness.

However it does seem to me labels are a necessary means of teaching, instructing or relating in a meaningful manner before a concept is understood and assimilated.
In my view, all Being, or Soul, hence Presence of Life, is a Mind-and-Spirit generated 'wave' which is 'made up', or 'created', by a combination of 'consciousness' and 'motivation', hence conscious-motivation.

In my view, everything/everyone is motivated by Spirit, which motivation (in relation to other 'waves') may either be 'positive' or 'negative' or (deliberately or otherwise) 'neutral'. Even in the latter case of of 'neutrality', however, this does not reflect an real 'emptiness' or absence of spirit (IMO, there can be no such thang!) but rather a passionate preference for not engaging either 'positively' or 'negatively' with whatever 'wave' of Life one is ex-peer-iencing, i.e. perceiving, at the moment.

Characterizing such 'neutrality' as 'pure' (implicitly characterizing any 'positive' or 'negative' responsive[/U[ness as 'impure', [U]emotionally-loaded, hence questionable, is white-washing psee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_(censorship)] propaganda, IMO.

In my view, 'waves' of Life may be 'surfed' in whatever 'direction' one wishes (chooses, elects, etc.) one's own 'wave' to travel in.

Of course, one may deliberately choose not to 'surf' on (i.e. to just be 'neutral' in relation to) any particular 'wave' that comes one's way. But to do so as a matter of principle/philosophy in relation to any and all 'waves' that come one's way is to abdicate and miss out on the opportunity that being a 'wave' in the context of the multiplicity of 'wave' opportunities that 'incarnation' provides us (our souls) with to developmentally move in 'positive' and away from 'negataive' directions - again, this is as seen in my view.

Such an election, if and as persevered in, will result in one's soul stagnating and, ultimately, atrophying if one is unlucky enough not to have Life's exigencies 'bust' one out of such static directional-immobilizaton - or so my logic leads me to think, believe and feel.

From my book in this regard: "I have deliberately not used phrases like ‘reaching Godhead’ and ‘getting to Heaven’, though what I am advocating is exactly that, because they erroneously imply an end‑destination. In terms of Life, this is a false concept. In case, having found Life’s mode of flux upsetting, you are one who has fallen prey to the temptation to set your sights on an illusion of some sort of utopian finale, let me disabuse you of the notion. The best, ultimately most glorious and joyful attain*ment is not a place or state that one arrives at and stays in. Staticity of any kind, if prolonged, leads to stagnation. In terms of Creativity, it is death! The ecstatic ‘peak’ such terms refer to is really not a final attainment or accomplishment, as many naively believe. Rather, as the words ‘Eternal Life’ clearly indicate, it is ever-ongoing creative process!"

[JustASimpleGuy]

"Many who consider themselves ‘true followers’ of Vedic teachings therefore proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life’s true richness and beneficence.

That's just an opinion and couldn't be further from the truth. That's not to say some don't fall into that trap, but it is to say if they do they have wandered off the path. It's no different than Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or followers of any other faith misinterpreting the tenants of their faith and leading themselves astray.

[davidsun]

Let us not look at consciousness as static. Recognise it as ... incessant dynamic stillness.
Make white black and black white with the wave of your mind-wand - magic trick?

[davidsun]

That's just an opinion and couldn't be further from the truth. That's not to say some don't fall into that trap, but it is to say if they do they have wandered off the path. It's no different than Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or followers of any other faith misinterpreting the tenants of their faith and leading themselves astray.
Yes, it is an opinion. Your opinion is that my opinion is far from 'the truth'. I agree with your comment about Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc. misinterpreting tenets of truth and going and leading others astray. I think this is true of most faith-followers, BTW.

I am waiting to see if you and Unseeking Seeker are exceptions in this regard - or not. I can't tell based on your and his communications to date. Do relate to 'the truths' I speak about at some point, if not for my then for others' sakes.

[davidsun]

I get it all to well. You reject the cosmos and settle for crumbs and hang it all on your treatise.
You say that, maybe because that is what you (wish to?) 'see'.

Here are the first three and a half paragraphs from my (freely downloadable) book, titled Godspeak 2000 (https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/godspeak2000.pdf), which belies your attribution of such 'rejection' to me (IMO).

What are you doing with your Life? Could you do better with it? What is Life all about anyway? And just how do you fit into it? The extent of your creative fulfillment depends on how honestly you answer such questions, and the degree to which your judgments and decisions are guided by the truth.

Whether you are young or old, male or female, black, white or color between; whatever your particular features and talents; whichever set(s) of people you ‘belong’ to; and whoever or however many you may be allied with— in ultimate terms, these are relatively minor factors and insignificant distinctions. Primarily and most fundamentally, you are a 'child' of the Universe, sustained and governed by dynamics much greater than your own or those of any human grouping. You may like what you want and attempt what you will, but you will effectively prosper and succeed only insofar as you identify and navigate the vital currents that surround and include both others and yourself, for, in the final analysis, we are all but little fish in Life’s much larger stream.

If you wish to be more than just a bouncing ball, pointlessly ricocheting off and between others around you; if your life is to amount to more than a ripple that simply dissipates as it traverses space and time—it is crucial that you understand and appropriately utilize the opportunity inherent in being an aspect of vibrant energy within a much greater, infinitely creative flow of energetic vibration.

Your life is a part of all Life, much the way the movement of a molecule in its membrane is an integral component of a drum’s total excitation. What you know as Life‑on‑Earth is the conjoint response of our global ‘drumhead’ to a cosmic ‘drumbeat’, ...


The rest of the book explores the implications of what's said in these paragraphs if you are interested.

[JustASimpleGuy]

You may like what you want and attempt what you will, but you will effectively prosper and succeed only insofar as you identify and navigate the vital currents that surround and include both others and yourself, for, in the final analysis, we are all but little fish in Life’s much larger stream.

Using the stream analogy we aren't little fish in the stream, we aren't the stream nor are we the ocean the stream eventually reaches. We are water.

Water = Cosmos. Little fish, brook, stream, river, even ocean = crumbs.

That's the underlying theme of non-dualism. Other analogies are clay and pot, gold and jewelry, wood and table. If you really want to drive it down all the way find the tiniest microcosm at the tiniest scale and everything is in fact the one thing there only in different manifestations. The delusion or ignorance is thinking one is a pot and not clay, jewelry and not gold, table and not wood.

[davidsun]

Using the stream analogy we aren't little fish in the stream, we aren't the stream nor are we the ocean the stream eventually reaches. We are water.

Water = Cosmos. Little fish, brook, stream, river, even ocean = crumbs.
You are water manifesting/creating as 'you' - I am water manifesting/creating as 'me'.

What you are doing is an attempt to hocus-pocus sleight-of-mind attempt 'disappear' 'you' and 'me'.

You basically imply/proclaim that (only) 'water' is just conversationally engaging with (only) 'water' here now.

Who/what is talking to and with you here now, Bro? As I have said, give logic a break!

[JustASimpleGuy]

You are water manifesting/creating as 'you' - I am water manifesting/creating as 'me'.

What you are doing is an attempt to hocus-pocus sleight-of-mind attempt 'disappear' 'you' and 'me'.

You basically imply/proclaim that (only) 'water' is just conversationally engaging with (only) 'water' here now.

Who/what is talking to and with you here now, Bro? As I have said, give logic a break!

I'm not hocus-pocusing anything. It's standard non-dual Vedanta. Have you ever asked yourself, deeply and honestly asked yourself, what about that philosophy so disturbs you?

Here's something interesting. Non-dual Vedanta says you and me aren't real and in the sense that you and me are ephemeral and somewhere deep down is the reality of our being that isn't ephemeral.

Material reductionists also say you and me, as far as consciousness, ego and free will are concerned, aren't real. It's all illusion and they do have some laboratory experiments seemingly backing up the claim about free will being illusory.

Physicists have some proofs the reality we experience isn't real. One example is electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force aren't fundamental forces though we think of them as such. Crank up the energy and they merged into the electroweak force. Beyond that GUT and TOE are hypothesized and TOE is the Unified Field.

The little wave has too much invested in its own identity and will not realize or even consider its true nature - Water.

https://youtu.be/kHRmFtzoaYg?t=911

[davidsun]

I'm not hocus-pocusing anything. It's standard non-dual Vedanta. Have you ever asked yourself, deeply and honestly asked yourself, what about that philosophy so disturbs you?
I have already stated (in other threads) that I think that what you call 'standard' Non-Dual Vedanta distorts the thruth about and leads people to deny the reality and abdicating their response-abilities, and consequently, their soul-growth potentials in the context of incarnational Life. I am not 'disturbed' that some choose that route. As in the case of 'standard' Christianity, however, my spirit (of Life) impels me to speak out in ways which aim to expose such Life-betrayal when I and as others propound it as being the way to full soul-realization (in my treatise I reference it such growth/development process) as a soul-maturation). Why? For the same reasons that proponents and teachers of greater awareness/consciousness are moved to expose 'false' advertising and educate naive novices (in terms of Truth pertaining to Life) so they are as susceptible to 'falling for' such pitches.

Here's something interesting. Non-dual Vedanta says you and me aren't real and in the sense that you and me are ephemeral and somewhere deep down is the reality of our being that isn't ephemeral.
That's what many 'flag-waving' (self-proclaimed) 'Non-Dualists' like you believe and say, but that doesn't make what they believe and say the truth about Life, any more than what 'flag-waving' (self-proclaimed) 'Christians', 'Muslims', 'Buddhists', etc. believe and say is the truth about Life.

To (hopefully) expose the falsity of such claim, in this thread I have quoted The Bhagavad Gita as clearly saying: "This phenomenal creation [referencing the reality of our Creation] ... is both ephemeral and eternal, is like a tree, but having its seed above in the Highest and its ramifications on this earth below…. When the Supreme Lord enters a body or leaves it, He gathers [the] senses together and travels on with them, as the wind gathers perfume while passing through the flowers. He is the perception of the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the smell, yea and of the mind also; and the enjoyment of the things which they perceive is also His. The ignorant do not see that it is He Who is [really!] present in life and Who departs at death.” The Bhagavad Gita, 15:1-10.) [Note: This quote is from the translation, downloadable here (https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/gita.pdf), by Shri Purohit Swami.

You have chosen and continue to choose not to relate to the significance of said quote, continuing to dualistically :smile: (illegitimately! IMO) split 'the ephemeral' from 'the eternal' and relegate the former to insignificance. Paul Simon's exquisite lyric come to mind :smile: in this regard: "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" (from the song, The Boxer) is the only comment I wish to make in this regard.

Material reductionists also say you and me, as far as consciousness, ego and free will are concerned, aren't real. It's all illusion and they do have some laboratory experiments seemingly backing up the claim about free will being illusory.
This is some of what I say pertaining to 'materialists' in my treatise (https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/what_jesus_meant_ds.pdf):

"Every aspect of Life (i.e. of Being-n-Doing) is an emanation of Life’s omnipresent Essence (d/b/a Source) that, by virtue of Its Power, is endowed with (1) the capacity to be conscious to some degree, which consciousness, or presence of ‘mind’, enables ‘it’ to ex·peer·ience whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is therefore capable of perceiving (i.e. registering) and so possibly responding to, and (2) the motive‧ation, or ‘spirit’, to ex·press ‘itself’ by way of causing, (generating, transmitting, propagating, etc.) whatever vibrations (occurrences, data-packets, etc.) ‘it’ is thereby motivated to ‘make’ in response thereto. In full‑zoom perspective, every nodal and multi-nodal feature of Life may be ‘seen’ to be a subsidiary soul, or gestalt of Life, which is facultatively imbued with ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ by, and consequently both experiences and expresses ‘itself’ in relationship to and with other nodes of Life ‘in’* the matrixial framework of, a (supranodal!) Soul, which is the Mind-n-Spirit constellation (which many regard and relate to as having personal attributes, though all personal attributes actually derive from It**) of That which is All That Is.

[Footnotes:
* “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28)
** As channel-spoken and recorded in Ch.10 of The Bhagavad Gita: “I am the Seed of all being, … no creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.”]

Orthodox materialists dismiss such idea as being no more than an example of wishful‑thinking because they believe that consciousness (i.e. ‘mind’), and motivation (i.e. intention, will, or ‘spirit’), are just epiphenomena which derive from the electro-chemical activity of molecular-chain linked ‘neural’ circuits, and that any differential discernment and directional movement must therefore simply be the result of innately unconscious and involitional matter-energy configurations (such as photons, atomic particles, molecules, DNA gene sequences and amalgams thereof) all just auto‑mechanistically responding to the influence of equally mindless [like you think 'you' really are, maybe?]and innately purposeless tempero-spatial (nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational) power-‘fields’. They therefore ‘see’ what we know as Life as being no more than the composite cause‑effect result of everything and everyone in the Universe just ‘acting out’ essentially soulless, theoretically completely mathematically delineable scripts. Embedded in the above-articulated soulfull☺ model of Life, however, is the possibility that, when and as the fantastically complex aggregation of associated beings which constitute the vehicular platform for one’s earthly experience and expression eventually disintegrates (in other words, when one’s body ‘dies’), the gestalt of one’s mind-n-spirit characterized soul-constellation may nevertheless continue to function as a disembodied psychospiritual entity which ‘lives on’ in the ‘bosom’ (idiomatically speaking☺) of the superordinate, eternally-ongoing because supraphysical (i.e. not temperospatial) Mind-n-Spirit composed Matrix of All That Is. This is the logic that gives rise to otherwise nonsensical scriptural exhortations such as “Labor not for the ‘meat’ which perisheth, but for that ‘meat’ which endureth unto everlasting life” (John 6:27), for instance.

Physicists have some proofs the reality we experience isn't real. One example is electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force aren't fundamental forces though we think of them as such. Crank up the energy and they merged into the electroweak force. Beyond that GUT and TOE are hypothesized and TOE is the Unified Field.

The little wave has too much invested in its own identity and will not realize or even consider its true nature - Water.
That's what you believe. I would say that physicists have only 'proved' that nothing is solid (I point to this in my book) but the 'spirits' of thangs and people are all REAL and though ever-changing (i.e. evolving) eternally ongoing as (sub)'entities'.

It is my sincere hope that what I have said here serves to help some previously closed-minded :smile: readers to open themselves up to genuinely considering the implications of this.

[JustASimpleGuy]

I have already stated (in other threads) that I think that what you call 'standard' Non-Dual Vedanta distorts the thruth about and leads people to deny the reality and abdicating their response-abilities, and consequently, their soul-growth potentials in the context of incarnational Life.

So you're the arbiter of spiritual truth.

That's what you believe. I would say that physicists have only 'proved' that nothing is solid (I point to this in my book) but the 'spirits' of thangs and people are all REAL and though ever-changing (i.e. evolving) eternally ongoing as (sub)'entities'.

And scientific truth too.

[davidsun]

So you're the arbiter of spiritual truth.
Methinks you'd like to muddy the water to 'suit' your preference by way of such aspersion.

I critique what strikes me as being non-sensical and articulate what makes logical sense to me. Every one of us, you included, is the arbiter of the truth-value of what one thinks and shares.

:cool:

[davidsun]

I critique what strikes me as being non-sensical and articulate what makes logical sense to me. Every one of us, you included, is the arbiter of the truth-value of what one thinks and shares.
From my book (https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/godspeak2000.pdf):

"... so you’ll approach such endeavor in the right spirit, I must reemphasize and ask you to keep being conscious of the fact that, even when they represent and facilitate understanding of aspects of absolute truth and goodness, concepts and principles and derivative codes of conduct are basically just situationally useful simplifications and props—the scope of [Life's] Creativity is much too grand to be completely delineated by ideational logic. Interactional policy and procedure therefore cannot be unequivocally prescribed by or for anyone.

Personal discernment and contextual decision-making is always necessary: Life’s multidimensionality and the multimodality of our interconnectedness and interdependence make it such that the best of descriptions will not fully inform you, and the best of guidelines will not indicate exactly what will and what won’t be constructive in relation to others around you, at least not for certain. And even when you are sure of what’s what and what would be best, either because of your own limitations or the positions and actions taken by differing others, you will often find you aren’t able to successfully implement what you think would be the consummate course of action. In such case, identifying and executing the most creative practicable alternative will be epitome of wisdom.

Assertions to the contrary don’t alter this truth a jot, no matter how authoritative or persuasive the person who makes them. Think about it: Life depends on there being an ever-evolving diversity of different and, therefore, in one or another way competing, sets of feelings and perceptions regarding what is and isn’t essential. If everything was absolutely consonant, there would be no progression in terms of learning and development, these being a function of the creative exercise of Intelligence and the intelligent exercise of Creativity. Existence, for it could not even be called Life in such case, would just be a round of the same set of symphonic notes endlessly repeating, because everything would then simply operate like clockwork.

So, though consensus may occasionally be arrived at and, even without it, certain value systems and hierarchies may prevail for periods of time, such a state of affairs is bound to be temporary. Sooner or later Life’s exigencies will change, just like the weather. What works for the best at one point won’t at another. The bottom line to what I’m saying is that, in the arena of involvement and interaction, there just aren’t any always-apropos rules. Making the most of relationships therefore requires that one recognize and creatively deal with contention and change regarding the viability of alternative modes of behavior and desirability of different goals. It follows that it is very unwise to simply adopt and aim to always function, or to try to get others to likewise adopt and function, in accordance with any particular set of precepts and priorities, however well-touted by however many, and however comprehensive they may seem from your present point of view.

(I belabor this point to such an extent because such course of action is as seductive as it is harmful. ... Inasmuch as they provide a framework for making coherent judgments and decisions, they often dramatically help immature and undiscerning individuals and groups to function, if not actually better, at least more stably, for a while. But they are as dangerous as any drug. Since they eliminate all sense of dilemma and simplify choice for the moment, they enable those who ‘use’ them to artificially feel both self-righteous and self-satisfied. If and as people continue to depend on such crutch, they become ‘addicted’ to this mode of operation. Instead of growing and expanding, via observation and synthesis of actual experience, their natural capacity to distinguish and evaluate creative possibilities atrophies and deteriorates. Ultimately, they reach the point where they can no longer perceive and so lose touch with what is most essential in Life.

Present trends illustrate what then happens: As absurdities are not recognized for what they are, people delude themselves and bluff others past the pales of reason. And, as youngsters don’t learn to how to make intelligent assessments from those who don’t know how to make intelligent assessments themselves, succeeding generations become progressively more dimwitted, more easily misled and confused. Intercourse based on true discernment and appraisal becomes more and more of a rarity. Grosser and grosser aberrations, of course, naturally ensue. The end result of convention-based choice and behavior is something akin to what would happen to a team in the course of a field-game, say of soccer, if its members played wearing head-gear that restricted their view to particular sectors or quadrants.a Many of the more unfortunate happenings we must now experience and deal with are a direct result of the fact that so many have persisted in functioning along such lines, to such a great extent, for such a long while.)"

[JustASimpleGuy]

Methinks you'd like to muddy the water to 'suit' your preference by way of such aspersion.

I critique what strikes me as being non-sensical and articulate what makes logical sense to me. Every one of us, you included, is the arbiter of the truth-value of what one thinks and shares.

:cool:

Aspersion? Perhaps you should go back through your replies.

The difference between us is you directly attack and demean some belief systems you seem to dislike or hold a grudge against, including their proponents. I do no such thing and in actuality one of the reasons I do like Advaita Vedanta, and particularly the Ramakrishna order, is its recognition all religious paths are valid and worthwhile and not to be disparaged. That has always resonated with me from a very young age.

[MikeS80]

Hi JASG

I’m enjoying many of your posts here. But I would take issue with the statement that ‘consciousness is fundamental’ is the core tenet of non-dualism. True enough, it IS the core of Advaita Vedanta. Understandably people often assume that Advaita and non-duality are synonyms (a-dvaita literally means non-duality.) Yet although Advaita certainly IS non-dualism, non-dualism is not necessarily Advaita Vedanta. The term (non-duality) can be applied to a wider domain of traditions, sub-traditions and philosophical perspectives.

A nondualist/absolute monist outlook is simply to attribute Oneness/not-two-ness or singleness to reality (it’s not necessarily to formulate what the ’substance’ or essence of that Oneness is.) Pantheism, for instance, is the view that everything is God/Nature. Buddhist, Madhyamaka describes the nature of reality as Emptiness - which is inseparable from all conceivable forms and conditions. This is sometimes interpreted as a monist view although Buddhist deny any form of ultimate reality. Taoism is similar to Pantheism in that it describes the primacy of a singular unifying force. Nondualistic thought can be found in much Christian mysticism and Neoplatonism. Even materialism can be described in nondualistic (or absolute monist - ultimately the same thing) terms:

“Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaterialismI really enjoyed this response to JASG. Pantheism goes perfectly together with Panpsychism (of quantum physics?), which Is the belief that the singularity, universe, god etc Is Conscious of Itself. Which means there must be duality for the singularity, universe, god to be conscious of itself.

[JustASimpleGuy]

I really enjoyed this response to JASG. Pantheism goes perfectly together with Panpsychism (of quantum physics?), which Is the belief that the singularity, universe, god etc Is Conscious of Itself. Which means there must be duality for the singularity, universe, god to be conscious of itself.

Singularity is a way of saying Einstein's relativity calculations break down, resulting in strings of infinities. In other words Relativity is wrong, however it's the best model we have for spacetime and works quite well until it reaches the point of massive spacetime curvature. Just like Newtonian mechanics work quite well at non-relativistic velocities even though in the big picture they are not as accurate as Einstein's relativity. They are good enough to send men to the Moon and back.

If you want to discuss QM in the context of consciousness then the only hypothesis that's close to legitimate (and many physicists would disagree) is Orch OR and it has absolutely nothing to do with singularities.

I know all about the various philosophies and also a lot at a laymen's level about consciousness from a neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind and physics perspective. It's been the topic of single-most interest for the past decade and that has shaped my views and when I did stumble across Advaita Vedanta instantly recognized its core tenets of non-duality.

[MikeS80]

Singularity is a way of saying Einstein's relativity calculations break down, resulting in strings of infinities. In other words Relativity is wrong, however it's the best model we have for spacetime and works quite well until it reaches the point of massive spacetime curvature. Just like Newtonian mechanics work quite well at non-relativistic velocities even though in the big picture they are not as accurate as Einstein's relativity. They are good enough to send men to the Moon and back.

If you want to discuss QM in the context of consciousness then the only hypothesis that's close to legitimate (and many physicists would disagree) is Orch OR and it has absolutely nothing to do with singularities.

I know all about the various philosophies and also a lot at a laymen's level about consciousness from a neuroscience, psychology, philosophy of mind and physics perspective. It's been the topic of single-most interest for the past decade and that has shaped my views and when I did stumble across Advaita Vedanta instantly recognized its core tenets of non-duality.What I meant by singularity, is oneness/god. I did not mean singularity in relation to relativity.

[Moondance]

I really enjoyed this response to JASG. Pantheism goes perfectly together with Panpsychism (of quantum physics?), which Is the belief that the singularity, universe, god etc Is Conscious of Itself. Which means there must be duality for the singularity, universe, god to be conscious of itself.

Hi Mike

Thanks. Yes, Panpsychism is the belief that there is only one ultimate reality and that consciousness is an essential, ubiquitous and inseparable quality of this reality. I see no reason why that wouldn’t fit with Pantheism. In all these forms of non-dualism/monism, relative difference/duality persists - even when it is seen for what it is. But ultimately there is only One ‘essence’ underlying these apparent dualities.

[JustASimpleGuy]

But ultimately there is only One ‘essence’ underlying these apparent dualities.

I'll even relate it to the pursuit in physics of a Theory of Everything, unifying all four fundamental forces into one underlying unifying force. They've already unified electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force, and two Nobel prizes have been awarded for that work.

Some physicists, though certainly in the extreme minority, are willing to contemplate the possibility Consciousness = Unified Field. John Hagelin is probably the most recognizable and he's truly brilliant and was a research physicist at CERN and SLAC, though very 'quirky'. He ran for president under the Natural Law Party and is also associated at the highest levels with the TM movement.

I've always believed there's no inherent conflict between religion and science and in fact both purse the exact same truth. It's dogma and on both sides that stirs the pot of conflict and mutual exclusivity.

[davidsun]

Aspersion? Perhaps you should go back through your replies.
Perhaps you should. I have expressed my opinions and criticed others (yours among them) and supported said opinions and criticisms with logical reasons. You are the one who (falsely, IMO) 'casts' that as presenting myself as an 'arbiter' of 'truth'. That is what a reference as being an 'aspersion'.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspersion :

Definition of aspersion -
1a : a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation casting aspersions on her integrity
b : the act of making such a charge : defamation

The difference between us is you directly attack and demean some belief systems you seem to dislike or hold a grudge against, including their proponents. I do no such thing and in actuality one of the reasons I do like Advaita Vedanta, and particularly the Ramakrishna order, is its recognition all religious paths are valid and worthwhile and not to be disparaged. That has always resonated with me from a very young age.

I have already called into question and disagreed with your regarding and verbally charactering my challenging questions and expressions of disagreement as being an 'attack' - which is another one of your 'aspersions', IMO.

While I consider all choices by anyone in any regard (even anti-Life ones!) to ipso facto be 'valid', I do not agree with your claim that all 'religious' paths are equally 'worthwhile' - you must know of 'ignorant' and 'cultish' ones, for example (human history is replete with many 'such religious' choices) which have been grossly Life-diminishing.

That something resonated with someone (in this case you) "from a very young age" in no way provides a logical 'rationalization' for supporting or maintianing choices in said regard, IMO.

[zorkchop]

JASG . . .

davidsun actually offers valuable experience to the various individuals here in that they can directly observe hard-core narcissism / ego / vanity / etc. It is rare that someone is so totally enamored with oneself that they constantly quote their own treatises . . . and put themselves above all else.

He is a fascinating individual to watch and he is a great example of what NOT to develop into.

I would assume that you personally know a good working definition of narcissism but just in case . . . and for those who do not . . . inordinate fascination with oneself . . . excessive self-love . . . vanity . . . (psychoanalysis) erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes . . . Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. synonym: conceit . . . personality disorder characterized by self-preoccupation, need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

It’s a phase we all go through at one time / lifetime or another . . . and it can be tweaked any number of ways and last for lifetime after lifetime.

Most people however will not realize that they are so fortified while in that state of consciousness. He is quite proud of where he is . . . and his perceived superiority over everyone else. LIFE will be the only teacher to lead him down a LONG path to correction . . . whenever that is. It won’t be pleasant. Until then . . . he will neither listen to nor consider much of anything we underlings have to say. He has clearly stated that he loves word bouquets . . . especially his own.

On we go.

[JustASimpleGuy]

JASG . . .

davidsun actually offers valuable experience to the various individuals here in that they can directly observe hard-core narcissism / ego / vanity / etc. It is rare that someone is so totally enamored with oneself that they constantly quote their own treatises . . . and put themselves above all else.

He is a fascinating individual to watch and he is a great example of what NOT to develop into.

I would assume that you personally know a good working definition of narcissism but just in case . . . and for those who do not . . . inordinate fascination with oneself . . . excessive self-love . . . vanity . . . (psychoanalysis) erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes . . . Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. synonym: conceit . . . personality disorder characterized by self-preoccupation, need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

It’s a phase we all go through at one time / lifetime or another . . . and it can be tweaked any number of ways and last for lifetime after lifetime.

Most people however will not realize that they are so fortified while in that state of consciousness. He is quite proud of where he is . . . and his perceived superiority over everyone else. LIFE will be the only teacher to lead him down a LONG path to correction . . . whenever that is. It won’t be pleasant. Until then . . . he will neither listen to nor consider much of anything we underlings have to say. He has clearly stated that he loves word bouquets . . . especially his own.

On we go.

I am really a simple guy. Now that's not to say I'm not intelligent but just that I don't really like to play mental gymnastics. I like to keep it as plain as possible. Sometimes I can be a little blunt but sometimes that's because I feel it's just a truth that needs to be spoken and not swept under the rug, so to speak. Sometimes it feels like if I disagree and don't express it just to avoid upsetting someone that neither honors myself or the other person. I do try to keep myself aware of that and adjust if I realize I've gone over the line.

[Moondance]

I'll even relate it to the pursuit in physics of a Theory of Everything, unifying all four fundamental forces into one underlying unifying force. They've already unified electromagnetism and the nuclear weak force, and two Nobel prizes have been awarded for that work.

Some physicists, though certainly in the extreme minority, are willing to contemplate the possibility Consciousness = Unified Field. John Hagelin is probably the most recognizable and he's truly brilliant and was a research physicist at CERN and SLAC, though very 'quirky'. He ran for president under the Natural Law Party and is also associated at the highest levels with the TM movement.

I've always believed there's no inherent conflict between religion and science and in fact both purse the exact same truth. It's dogma and on both sides that stirs the pot of conflict and mutual exclusivity.

Yes, I agree that there need not be conflict between science and spirituality - as you say, both work in the pursuance of truth. But it seems clear to me that science can only take us so far. The scientific method requires the objectivisation of phenomena and in this way can only be the study of the relative. As the science writer Jim Baggott says; ‘Reality is at heart a metaphysical concept - it is, quite simply, beyond physics and therefore beyond science.’

[JustASimpleGuy]

Yes, I agree that there need not be conflict between science and spirituality - as you say, both work in the pursuance of truth. But it seems clear to me that science can only take us so far. The scientific method requires the objectivisation of phenomena and in this way can only be the study of the relative. As the science writer Jim Baggott says; ‘Reality is at heart a metaphysical concept - it is, quite simply, beyond physics and therefore beyond science.’

Yes, I do agree. Science will never reach the bottom of reality and even spirituality, if the few odd and extremely rare individuals throughout history have, in no way can its true essence be conveyed to the rest of humanity outside of analogy, metaphor, simile and parable.

[Moondance]

Yes, I do agree. Science will never reach the bottom of reality and even spirituality, if the few odd and extremely rare individuals throughout history have, in no way can its true essence be conveyed to the rest of humanity outside of analogy, metaphor, simile and parable.

Yes. And even when we awaken to our true nature of Oneness (for want of a phrase) we are waking TO the dream (to use that metaphor) we are not waking FROM the dream. We look around, and smile and gasp at the utter familiarity of this, and say, ‘of course, it was this (THIS) all along’. But this doesn’t give us insight into the deepest enigmas of reality (despite some claims.) Awakening is purely a lucid affair.

[JustASimpleGuy]

Yes. And even when we awaken to our true nature of Oneness (for want of a phrase) we are waking TO the dream (to use that metaphor) we are not waking FROM the dream. We look around, and smile and gasp at the utter familiarity of this, and say, ‘of course, it was this (THIS) all along’. But this doesn’t give us insight into the deepest enigmas of reality (despite some claims.) Awakening is purely a lucid affair.

Yes! It's like gaining lucidity within a dream!!! That is a truly unique experience too.

Of course then there are the claims of mystics like Sadhguru. I have no clue about the veracity of his claims, but I do realize if true there's absolutely no way language could even begin to convey the experience. I think about the passage from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna reveals his true nature to Arjuna. Poor Arjuna. LOL!

[Moondance]

Yes! It's like gaining lucidity within a dream!!! That is a truly unique experience too.

Of course then there are the claims of mystics like Sadhguru. I have no clue about the veracity of his claims, but I do realize if true there's absolutely no way language could even begin to convey the experience. I think about the passage from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna reveals his true nature to Arjuna. Poor Arjuna. LOL!

Yes. :) Reminds me of this wonderful poem by Hafiz.

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
Who are you?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening called the mouth,

O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly laughing – Now!

Hafiz

[davidsun]

JASG . . .

davidsun actually offers valuable experience to the various individuals here in that they can directly observe hard-core narcissism / ego / vanity / etc. It is rare that someone is so totally enamored with oneself that they constantly quote their own treatises . . . and put themselves above all else.

He is a fascinating individual to watch and he is a great example of what NOT to develop into.

I would assume that you personally know a good working definition of narcissism but just in case . . . and for those who do not . . . inordinate fascination with oneself . . . excessive self-love . . . vanity . . . (psychoanalysis) erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes . . . Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. synonym: conceit . . . personality disorder characterized by self-preoccupation, need for admiration, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

It’s a phase we all go through at one time / lifetime or another . . . and it can be tweaked any number of ways and last for lifetime after lifetime.

Most people however will not realize that they are so fortified while in that state of consciousness. He is quite proud of where he is . . . and his perceived superiority over everyone else. LIFE will be the only teacher to lead him down a LONG path to correction . . . whenever that is. It won’t be pleasant. Until then . . . he will neither listen to nor consider much of anything we underlings have to say. He has clearly stated that he loves word bouquets . . . especially his own.

On we go.
"I have become all things to all people." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) comes to mind.

[zorkchop]

davidsun . . .

If you believe that to any extent . . . you are more enamored with yourself than I thought . . . but then again . . . there have been many throughout the history of mankind.

Without a doubt . . . you wear your status / superiority openly and well . . . as you stroll along behind your barricade of words.

Enjoy it for as long as you feel it necessary. By the time LIFE begins to drop IT’s life-altering hints . . . you will not remember what many on this site have tried to show you.

[davidsun]

davidsun . . .

If you believe that to any extent . . . you are more enamored with yourself than I thought . . . but then again . . . there have been many throughout the history of mankind.

Without a doubt . . . you wear your status / superiority openly and well . . . as you stroll along behind your barricade of words.

Enjoy it for as long as you feel it necessary. By the time LIFE begins to drop IT’s life-altering hints . . . you will not remember what many on this site have tried to show you.
I hear/understand the reasoning which leads you to forewarning me so, zorkchop. I sincerely hope you have heard/understood the reasoning which led me to say all that I have said to you.

[zorkchop]

Um . . . no you dont . . . yet here come the games.

There are facets of Self that are much better suited to gaining insight into what is being expressed by many than “hearing.” You clearly show you are not interested in learning. Odd that people like you always consider such options and occasions as impositions or defeats . . . not as opportunity to learn lessons that you will undoubtedly have to deal with at some lifetime or another.

The only thing worse than someone who takes such gamesmanship and pleasure in not seeing / hearing / considering . . . is one who delights in doing so. Ego knows no bounds. It is also very blind and deaf.

I am done with these exchanges.

[davidsun]

Um . . . no you dont . . . yet here come the games.

There are facets of Self that are much better suited to gaining insight into what is being expressed by many than “hearing.” You clearly show you are not interested in learning. Odd that people like you always consider such options and occasions as impositions or defeats . . . not as opportunity to learn lessons that you will undoubtedly have to deal with at some lifetime or another.

The only thing worse than someone who takes such gamesmanship and pleasure in not seeing / hearing / considering . . . is one who delights in doing so. Ego knows no bounds. It is also very blind and deaf.

I am done with these exchanges.
I wouldn't call what is isn't happening between us 'exchanges'.

FWIW: What you say comes across (to me) as 'pure' self-projection.

[zorkchop]

Well played.

[davidsun]

Well played.
...........:thumbsup:..........

[zorkchop]

You misinterpreted my meaning when I offered “Well Played” . . . for it referred to the complete gamesman that you are . . . played from a defensive position . . . to resolve all responsibility for looking inward rather than choosing to point your finger outward. You played a faddish cliche to keep yourself safe.

Well played.

[davidsun]

You played a faddish cliche to keep yourself safe.

Well played.
......deleted,,,,,,