Mannyb

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    318

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mannyb

  1. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    22 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    'If you think you got it, you don't got it.'- Leo Gura

    If you really understood what you think Sam isn't getting, it would not matter to you what Sam Harris thinks. 

    Again, this whole conversation is like having a dream where you are trying to tell one character in the dream, that some other character in the dream doesn't understand that they are a character in a dream.  To even have that conversation, is to be lost in the dream.. the very thing you think the character in the dream doesn't realize. 

    Leo was addressing a person, not God. God gets it, God is understanding itself. 

    Sam as a character in God’s dream is in denial about his very nature, it’s simple. I (relatively speaking) care about what he thinks, since his audience is quite big, and he could be spreading love, beauty, understanding and happiness instead of fear, doubt, and fundamental ignorance of the fact that we share our being. The implications of such a realization are already starting to have a big impact in many of us, and soon our society.

    To be lost in the dream is to not know this is a dream. Once you know you are dreaming you’re not lost anymore. 
    Here we are having a conversation within the dream, doesn’t mean we are lost at all. Only those who think themselves to be separate and reality to be out there made of matter, in time and space are lost.

  2. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    12 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    I am necessarily 'confused'. 'I' can only seem like me (as opposed to that which is not me), by forgetting/pretending/imagining duality, which means I/God/Everything/Nothing is confused about what it is. 

    You’re implying I is a separate thing. You are god, and can only seem to be confused, same with Sam. God can’t be confused. God is pure understanding.

  3. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    7 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

     

    @Mannyb who or what would be aware of awareness? More awareness? 

     

    There once was a boy who said, though

    it seems that I know that I know.

    But what I'd like to see, is the I who knows me,

    when I know that I know that I know. 

    -Alan Watts

    Awareness (being aware of being aware)  is aware of being aware, that’s it. It is not a thing, there can’t be more of it, it is ♾ and eternal. Rupert gets it, most of us here get it, Sam does not, do you get it? 

  4. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb what even is 'material' from a non-dual paradigm? (material/immaterial, real/imaginary, this/that.. all duality) 

    I use 'material' 'real' 'physical' etc interchangeably.. they are all imaginary duality, which must be, for any of those 'qualities' or 'limits' to mean anything. 

    Were 'I' to be fully awake to the 'nothingness/everythingness/formlessness/infiniteness' of 'reality', there would be no 'me' who knew it.

     

     

     

    You equate them, that doesn’t mean they are equal. Experience is real & made of consciousness, that doesn’t make it material. Yes there would be a you which is no other than awareness or more correctly “being aware of being aware”. Sam doesn’t want to admit that, otherwise he would agree with Rupert and spread the love of non duality. Namaste ?? 

  5. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb I've only repeatedly stated that to think about Sam Harris separate from 'that which is not Sam Harris', is to be lost in duality (which is his point). Even having this discussion is to be lost in duality.

    To experience 'oneness/formlessness' is to understand that Harris, his paradigm, this conversation, is You/God/Everything, in which case this is all just mental masturbation and meaningless.

    Sure, if so you say. 
    Just be clear and straight to the point. Your previous comment implies you agree with Rupert, yet when he mentions finite minds you seem to resist such a concept, although you seem open to concepts such as hair, thoughts and so on.

    The fact of experience is there is only the knowing of it, that’s what Rupert says and that can not be disproven.

  6. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    13 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb I've started threads on here before. I love talking about this stuff. 

    'I' (everything currently being experienced) operate from a paradigm that the 'I who is experiencing my experience' is an illusion. There is just experience, and whatever this experience is, is True. 

    Current experience is that of a 'me' and a 'you' and a 'forum' where we are talking, but this 'me' is something that is happening, not something that 'does things'. 

    This is always happening now.. 

    There is no 'experiencer of what is happening', there is just 'what is happening'. 

    I have no other self than the totality of current experience, whatever it is, whether I feel like a separate self who experiences experience or not, that is what is true. 

    I don't think my thoughts any more than I grow my hair. Hair is growing. Thoughts are thinking. Experience is experiencing. 

    This part of our understanding we can agree on, most of us here wouldn’t dispute that. It’s the other things you’ve said which don’t make sense. 

  7. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    @Valwyndir Yes! That’s why it’s called non duality and not oneness. 
     

    @Mason Riggle either you’re onto something, or you’re the confused one. If you really believe to have a more complete understanding than everyone on this forum, Rupert Spira, and other teachers, then why not start a different thread in which you could attempt to enlighten us? Or maybe you could make a video / write a book. Don’t tell us there’s no “you” who could do that since you’ve already been interacting and dragging this out for too long. Same for you @Coldbrain

  8. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    2 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb Sam's perspective seems to matter to an awful lot of people here, who have some opinion about it. 

    The dream only exists while one is lost in dream. To 'wake up' from the dream is to no longer be lost in it. 

    If you think Sam is real, then you are just as committed to reality as Sam. 

    If you think the characters in your dream are real, you're still dreaming. 

    Then start teaching & start with Rupert, Leo etc... since you seem to be the only one awake here. Btw you haven’t convinced anyone other than yourself here, good luck ? 

  9. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    18 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb as far as I know Sam has never identified as a Materialist. That's a label that's been assigned to him. 

    He's not even necessarily a 'realist'. 

    He seems perfectly comfortable with the idea that reality might be imaginary. 

    "I might be a brain in a vat". - Sam Harris. 

    His point is that it only 'really' matters, from the 'realist' perspective. 

    From the 'idealist' paradigm, 'mattering' is just an idea. 

     

     

    The realist and idealist perspectives are mere philosophy. And why insist on it having to matter?  
    Again, Sam is real and his reality is imaginary, so is his perspective. ?? 

  12. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb it only concludes that materialism must be true, for any notion of it being true or false to mean anything. 

    The conversation between characters in a dream only has meaning for those characters within the dream.  

    If one awakens from the dream, one will laugh at itself for thinking the dream (and characters within it) was real. 

    That conclusion does not reflect true understanding. Materialism is not true because no one has ever found a thing called matter, and no one ever could. That is true honesty, and leads to understanding. And that has already happened for some of us (perhaps including yourself, although it doesn’t seem that way), but definitely not for Sam.

  13. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    4 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Carl-Richard you're here participating.

    Either you're alone, talking to yourself..

    Or there's a you, and a me who you are talking to. 

    'You' can't convince 'me' it's the former without believing it's the latter. 

    It’s not either or, it’s both, your mind can’t understand it, that’s why it resists that possibility, so does Sam Harris’ mind.

  14. Posted

    13 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb I doubt Sam entertains the idea that he is a character in someone else's dream. He is pretty adamant that the self is an illusion, without making any claims about 'who' is the Illustrator. 

    His point is- if there's no 'materialism', then there is no 'you' or 'me' who can be 'convinced' of anything.  

    Without being lost in the dream, there are no characters in the dream. 

    His point is wrong because it concludes materialism to be true just because of the apparent illusion. 

  16. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    16 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb the characters of my dream only exist while I'm in it. To admit of the 'realness' of the characters in my dream is to be lost in the dream. 

    True. Doesn’t change the fact that while you/I were identifying with a character, that character was “pushed” to admit to being aware of the dream by another seeming “character” at first, only to realize that I am always aware of being aware.

  21. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    5 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb which again, is Sam's point. This 'limited' contraction (materialism) is the only paradigm in which this conversation ever 'matters'. 

    It is Rupert’s point, Sam doesn’t get it the way we do. He believes the contraction to be “it”, the map to be the territory. Otherwise he’d be the one teaching the direct path.

  24. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    11 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    How can you have integrated 'oneness' and still believe there is a separate thing called 'Sam Harris'? 

    'finite minds' only exist when we don't know oneness. 

    Go tell that to Rupert or any non dual teacher. Namaste.
    Most of us “finite minds” here are telling you about the need to make concessions in order to speak. Imagine a master telling a seeker you don’t exist nor matter & proceeding to eliminate all his teaching, since a teaching implies a student. 

  25. Posted · Edited by Mannyb

    6 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Mannyb which is what we are all doing whenever we talk to 'each other'. 

    Not really, I’m talking to you whilst having integrated the knowing of our being. Not the case for Sam and almost all the other finite minds that think and feel themselves as an apparent separate self into existence inside a world of objects.