Why I'm not a Taoist

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

.... beyond the realm of the 5 senses and not related to something that you had previously heard or read?

Yes, “silent communication” is beyond five senses.

I suppose psychic phenomena such as meeting in astral, telepathy, communicating with the departed etc. etc. could be said to be “silent communication”, but that is not “IT” either.
Psychic phenomena is more like a ‘side door’ and still in the realm of duality.
(Although it can be used as a tool)

*

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 121 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by sentient

I suppose psychic phenomena such as meeting in astral, telepathy, communicating with the departed etc. etc. could be said to be “silent communication”, but that is not “IT” either.
Psychic phenomena is more like a ‘side door’ and still in the realm of duality.

I agree that such psychic phenomena, as you have identified above, could be said to be "silent communication" ... but, as you aptly noted, "psychic phenomena is ... still in the realm of duality" and hence "that is not IT either".

Excellent point.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 120 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by ayar415

None of them (gnoses) were beyond the realm of the 5 senses.
Case in point: you, the individual human being, are separate from me, in an objective reality (false).

As you suggested, let's take your case in point. How did you come to the conclusion as "false" that "you, the individual human being, are separate from me, in an objective reality (false)"?

You say that NONE of your gnoses came from the realms beyond the 5 senses so I am curious how you came to your conclusion that separateness in an objective reality is "false".

NOTE: As for your comments about Krishnamurti and David Bohm, I am very familiar with Krishnamurti and still have his book, "The Awakening of Intelligence" in which he clearly states that "the mind must go beyond itself" (page 113, paperback version). Part of his dialogues with David Bohm are included in that book. I eventually moved away from Krishnamurti as he did not appear to be as authentic as he presented himself. Nonetheless, I still have his book since I find value in it as there is value in virtually anything.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/the-sh...-krishnamurti/

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 120 EXCERPT: As you suggested, let's take your case in point. How did you come to the conclusion as "false" that "you, the individual human being, are separate from me, in an objective reality (false)"?

To discuss your question, we need to approach it rationally so that an academic philosopher (like Bertrand Russell) and a physicist like (David Bohm) can follow the reasoning. No Taoist master gnosis nonsense.

And to clarify ideas, we use plain language that everybody - especially grade school kids whose minds are still supple - can grasp. Empty your mind and be like water (said Bruce Lee); otherwise, we won't get anywhere.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

QUOTE 120 EXCERPT:You say that NONE of your gnoses came from the realms beyond the 5 senses so I am curious how you came to your conclusion that separateness in an objective reality is "false".

What is objective reality? In simple terms, it just means the perception of separateness from a material world of people and things out there. This is the prevailing consensus worldview: I am separate from you, and the rock I stub my toe on.

The rock is detected by the sense of touch, and sight, etc. Awareness of sensation is consciousness. The intellect is the facility that gives form to sensation, and - in that process - creates (the illusion of) people and things and the relation between them in (illusory) time and (illusory) space.

The above is the verbal clarification (episteme) of my gnosis. If I am merely repeating what I have read, Bohm and Russell would be able to take my gnosis apart. They would subject me to rigorous questioning to elicit my response to explain how is it possible for the illusion to be so real.

I would give them the answer which is pointed to in Chapter 2. And to prove that it is gnosis, I would explain the illusion, not in terms of ancient Chinese thought but modern-day mathematical logic (which is their forte).

Gnosis is "intelligence" (Krishnamurti's term) in action. It is definitely human and within the realm of the 5 senses. It is needed to keep the intellect operating on an even keel in order to avoid creating suffering. Gnosis of this kind is wholesome. Spirituality that is unwholesome is superstition.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 125 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by ayar415

The above is the verbal clarification (episteme) of my gnosis. If I am merely repeating what I have read, Bohm and Russell would be able to take my gnosis apart. They would subject me to rigorous questioning to elicit my response to explain how is it possible for the illusion to be so real.

It's still not clear to me how you came to your conclusion within the realm of the 5 senses.

In the book Quantum Questions, there are the "mystical writings" of several nobel-prize winning quantum physicists (Schroedinger, Einstein, Planck, DeBroglie, Eddington, etc.) which are consistent with my own understanding and approach. Schoedinger specifically pointed out that science and mathematical logic can only take one so far.

Recently, I attended a Krishnamurti-oriented "dialogue" session for the first and last time as it went nowhere after 2 1/2 hours when I left and, by which time, over half the group had left. Such dialogues require some one who knows something ... like Krishnamurti ... without which it just rambled in the intellectual spheres.

In any case, I acknowledge that there are definitely different strokes for different folks.

[Still_Waters]

Tao:

33 (last sentence):

"Die without dying, and you'll endure forever."

Such a practice appears in Sufism, Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other traditions as well.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

"Die without dying, and you'll endure forever."
Such a practice appears in Sufism, Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other traditions as well.

Well, and then Jesus had his version of that!

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Tao:

33 (last sentence):

"Die without dying, and you'll endure forever."

Such a practice appears in Sufism, Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other traditions as well.

You are incorrigible. I told you not to read lines in isolation but to reflect on them in context of the whole chapter.

If you are blind, you won't know what you are holding if you grab just the tail without checking out it's connection to the whole elephant.

[ayar415]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Well, and then Jesus had his version of that!

Do you mean this version, Miss Hepburn?

Originally Posted by John 11:25-26

I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.

According to Still Waters, the above quote is episteme and an intellectual dialogue on that will go nowhere.

Do you have a direct experience (gnosis) of what was recorded in the Gospel? At any rate, your interpretation of "Jesus' version" would still be of interest to me.