Wealth & Consciousness Are Compatible?

[UnbornTao]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

I could just negate this and say "Your notion of closedness is superficial and merely intellectual".

But in any case, I dont think you know what I mean by openness. Openness doesnt mean that I assign a high probability to the given proposition being true , I just mean that unless I actually explicitly know with 100% certainty (which is almost never the case) that given thing is false, the door remains somewhat open.  And in certain cases that openness could be 0.00000000000000000001% ( but still its different than the claim that "its definitely false", because there it would be actually 0%).

Again, too abstract. In your experience, you already likely consider this notion as nonsense - you just don't want to appear assertive or be honest about it. It's not grounded in your everyday reality, so to speak. It's the same with notions such as "no-self" and the rest, which are BS for pretty much everyone, because they do in fact experience themselves as the central element of their experience, and that goes way beyond any affectation or adopted notion.

Edited 15 hours ago by UnbornTao

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Again, too abstract. In your experience, you already likely consider this notion as nonsense - you just don't want to appear assertive or be honest about it. It's not grounded in your everyday reality, so to speak

That doesnt contradict what I said. But what you still fail to engage with is the fact that what I or you consider to be obvious and what my or your sense of rationality is - those things are subject to be wrong.

All of what is absurd, what is rational, what is nonsense - all of that shit is informed by things that are subject to be wrong. You labeling that abstract or intellectual or nonsense doesnt show that your considered nonsensical thing is actually false, what it shows is that given your current understanding of reality (Which may or may not be accurate), that thing goes against it.

So if we want to talk about honestly - lets be actually epistemically honest about what our sense of absurdness, rationality, experience, and nonsense is actually informed by.

Edited 14 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

I agree - thats why we shouldnt make claims with certainty what is fantasy and what is not.

It wasnt me who claimed that it is true, it was you who labeled it as a "fantasy".

All of this shit comes back to what I said - if you dont want to entertain it, thats fine, but the moment you start to make claims about it you are in trouble.

The difference between what's experienced and what's conceptualized is a useful metric. Of course, we may eventually discover that everything we call 'experience' is itself a mental fabrication, which doesn't help much. But at least it gives us a starting point.

Yeah - fantasy. Bullshit. It's just a belief. There is such a thing as fantasy, and it's everywhere in spiritual circles. Most spirituality is fantasy.

To entertain some of it, your existence itself may be sort of an illusion. So everything based on the persistence of that self is inevitably fabricated.

[UnbornTao]

Quote

fantasy(n.)

early 14c., "illusory appearance," from Old French fantaisie, phantasie "vision, imagination" (14c.), from Latin phantasia, from Greek phantasia "power of imagination; appearance, image, perception," from phantazesthai "picture to oneself," from phantos "visible," from phainesthai "appear," in late Greek "to imagine, have visions," related to phaos, phōs "light," phainein "to show, to bring to light" (from PIE root *bha- (1) "to shine").

The sense of "whimsical notion, illusion" is pre-1400, followed by that of "fantastic imagination," which is attested by 1530s. The sense of "day-dream based on desires" is from 1926. In early use in English also fantasie, phantasy, etc. As the name of a fiction genre, by 1939.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by UnbornTao

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Of course, we may eventually discover that everything we call 'experience' is itself a mental fabrication, which doesn't help much.

Thats not what the claim is - this is the issue "Do you actually know that the claim is false?" 'No?' "Okay, then dont say that it is definitely false."

 

This is compatible with you labeling it as fantasy and absurd and wishful thinking and this is compatible with your argument about what should or shouldnt be entertained (which again I agree with generally speaking).

Edited 14 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Again, too abstract. In your experience, you already likely consider this notion as nonsense

It isn't too abstract.

it is the difference between saying that there cant be anything shown to you to change your mind on it, and between there could be hypothetically something that could change your mind on it.

[Thought Art]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am saying his teachings would earn him millions.

You guys are so dense. Arguing with me over silly things.

If today the Buddha was as popular as he was in his day, he would make millions. And this is a good thing because it means he is useful to others, it means his teachings are popular.

Look at Eckhart Tolle. That is a modern Buddha. Net worth: $30 million. Does that mean he's some greedy fuck? No. It just means his books sell well.

The Buddha as popular as he is today would make billions? He’s selling Buddha statues, tattoos, books about Buddhism, and Buddha bowls. Mans it raking in the cash.

Edited 14 hours ago by Thought Art