AtheisticNonduality

Member
  • Content count

    1,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AtheisticNonduality

  1. Lyrics that are actually meaningful and have something to say, some information to give, some story to tell, some world to imagine, some access to truth, some access to the overarching story of all of history, etc.
  2. They don't, so how is pain ---------> awakening facilitated? I would argue a statue of Christ crucified is both more symbolically competent and pain-inducing (empathetically?) than "feeling" some teacher. And emotions are actually lower than symbols. Observe:
  3. Lol, maybe you should be listening to music with good lyrics as opposed to rubbish. Also, sounds risk being too meaningless without proper linguistic context.
  4. Both Life and Death and Rebirth. At the end of the Book of Matthew, Jesus doesn't have a very good time, in case you don't know. What are people supposed to do with the suffering of God? Hopefully you could see how basing spirituality around what is to "feel the guru" could become pathological.
  5. Dream metaphors? Would dreams suffice better than linguistic symbols? Or in this are the linguistic symbols just used for making the dreams? Nirguna Brahman is not conveyable except for telling people "where" / how to find it. Neti neti is not specific enough. I want a complex system of bridges for getting there, from sensory and conceptual to nonsensory and nonconceptual. I mean how does one transmit God into a human? How do you shove Nothingness and Everythingness into a person, directly. It would have to be through dreaming, in a very abstract sense far removed from the automatic dreams we have as biological entities, or it would be language inducing specific connections to various regions that are accessible but unaccessed, which could possibly open up to greater previously inaccessible neural associative bridgeways. So you have to map out which specific connections are accessible but unaccessed as pertaining to Emptiness or pseudo-Emptiness states (little emptinesses and hollownesses) and Everything senses, to open these webs to proper access. This all needs logical phenomenological modeling and rigorously systematizing, using dreams though. Injection?
  6. @Carl-Richard The question is, how do we convert nonhumanity into humanity, symbolically? The same way dreams do it for us when we sleep?
  7. How do we put God in human terms?
  8. @RMQualtrough I know the Emptiness and dissociating from the images, and yet still the images are the Emptiness. It's just simply true.
  9. This exact argument of the screen vs. the words was resolved here as Emptiness vs. form or Absolute vs. relative or Spaceless Timelessness vs. space and time.
  10. Existential psychology (in the form of Existential Phenomenological Therapy) would speak of an embodied self, which is when the somatic organism is identified with as part of the subject and not just an external phenomenon observed by a subject.
  11. Do you want him to feed you information with a spoon? The answer is, no. Quieting your thoughts is not enough. Meditative states often are abstract.
  12. This is probably not a problem with your competence or intelligence or technical skillset but just with your emotions. Your emotions are not lining up with reality, so you'll have feelings of worthlessness no matter how worthy you actually are, which could skew your results and make you unhappy and go into a withdrawing state where you become unmotivated and "laying in bed most of the day feeling sorry" for yourself. So I would suggest a psychological rather than a pragmatic approach.
  13. @RMQualtrough I would argue permanence (the screen) and impermanence (the screen as words) are equally real.
  14. Ni = God. Ti = ego.
  15. The monk's monkness and the murderer's rape/killing of children are identical in the way they are both absolute existence, and yet they are different things. That's why this is a language issue. For a reductio ad absurdum, think of mathematical truths like one does not equal two or three does not equal four. Ultimately, absolutely, they do equal each other, and yet they don't. The reason the ultimate absolute level is appearing so profound is because you were operating under the relative for so long that you "forgot" about the absolute, and now the undeniable divinity and fundamentality of the absolute is making you sway your language to that side; but both definitions are just definitions.
  16. @thisintegrated What do you have to say to your superego, speaking as the ego? What do you have to say to your ego, speaking as the superego?
  17. @RMQualtrough This is a language issue primarily, yet it also bleeds into you depersonalizing the world (and you as a word are taking away the person-ness of the world, which is a set of words). The screen as only itself without any words does not care if it exists in an enlightened state or not; that's something the words rearrange themselves into. A variety of reinterpretations can then happen, like what you're doing right now by denying hierarchies/dualities like good vs. bad, saints vs. sinners, etc.
  18. @thisintegrated Again with the techno-Muskian hogwash . . . 🤦
  19. @RMQualtrough I'd say the words are what we're talking about when we speak of enlightenment. Reality is the same whether it's in non-enlightenment or enlightenment, so obviously Reality is not the only standard for awakening. Awakening is when the words, or those aspects of existence which have actual formed substance, attain awareness / recognition. Reality does not require self-recognition unless it is enlightened, and we understand a process of unenlightened ignorance up to enlightened wakefulness, otherwise there's no reason to discuss any of this.
  20. If I gestapo-style tortured Jed McKenna, cutting his fingers off, beating him up, etc., he would experience suffering, regardless of egolessness. If I tweaked his brain in the right ways, I could make him bipolar or schizophrenic, and he would experience suffering, regardless of egolessness. If I killed his whole family, he would . . . etc. I have also mentioned before that schizophrenics and the depersonalized experience no-self, and yet they're insane and suffer; so the connection is tenuous at best: it's a myth propagated by simplicity-addicted fools. We've, if we're thinking correctly, defined enlightenment as these states. But you have an "alternative" definition that comes with only two things: death of the ego (which is nebulously defined) and a vague positive state characterized by a reduction of suffering. And we have already proven that this is not necessarily the case with bipolarity or schizophrenia or physical torture or even just ordinary mental torture, since the ego is not required at all for any of these: see above ^.
  21. Lol, you have been convicted of not having awakened. Maybe you have experienced some reduction in suffering, but that is not It.
  22. What's troubling to me is that you reduce all of these positive states to a negative removal of ego. As an analogy, it's like saying pleasure is just the removal of pain. You've made the claim that once the ego is gone, the enlightenment begins, and the amount of ego gone-ness has an exact correlation with enlightenment levels. But what phenomenologically could you say about enlightenment and these experiences? How would you define terms like God, nirvana, savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhis, Nothingness, Everythingness, Nondual Union, Soul, Luminousness? How do you experience them? What is your emotional state? If you can't cough up excellent descriptions of these states and what they're actually like, it makes me think you've just been pretending to destroy some imaginary thing called the ego, when really nothing or at least less than what you believe has been happening.
  23. He does not equate them both (motivation and cognition), but Maslow is placed there amongst the other models. Motivation is one line that goes through the same levels of complexity / vertical development, just like how the different types of cognition are different lines, so Kohlberg (the ethical line) will correlate in terms of the levels gone through with the lines of various multiple intelligences and personality and such but will remain its own consideration. I mean you could have someone at Piagetian formal-operational that has Kohlberg's preconventional morals.
  24. How can a single person (yes, that's right, you are a person) be so delusional and self-flattering when their entire viewpoint is supposedly based on principles of nondelusional selflessness? That's a bit self-contradictory, since you have the worldview Wilber had in the seventies . . . before the model was improved, that is. Same levels, different lines. But generally you could make it so they will fall together. The physiological needs are Beige, the safety needs are Red, the love/belongingness needs are Amber, self-esteem needs are Orange, Green is like an intermediary, self-actualization is Teal/Turquoise, self-transcendence is "Tier 3". I'm uncomfortable, though, with putting love/belongingness with Amber, since practically it is improved properly only in Green and upwards; and yet the holon of that kind still emerges at conventional rather than postconventional (yes, the Kohlberg model adds up too).