Truth

[James123]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

In general the more we speak and try to correct/convince the less certain we are.

This is not about correcting or convincing but about helping, leading.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Someone else truth don't exist. 

There is only the Truth.

[Carl-Richard]

More "I only use one frame" non-duality preaching and endless argumentation to uphold that frame. Non-duality is not cognitive development.

[Mellowmarsh]

8 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Mellowmarsh  Hey.  I'm curious about how you feel about the mentality of "there is no . . . .(blah blah blah)".  

Hey Joseph, I think saying “there is no…..”human separate self” or “no anything” is a pointless teaching, it doesn’t actually serve us any purpose really, how could it. The whole point of the illusion of separation was to not realise the separation was an illusion. I mean why would nature even bother to factor in the self-aware human  being capable of possessing conceptual language that constructed every conceivable concept known, as a language tool.

 

If there’s no self, or no mind, then the announcement of such a “ NO” would have been impossible to make,  it takes a self to say there’s no self, which is nonsensical.
 

There is without doubt or error “human conceptual language” and it’s clearly being used all the time. To deny it’s validity is absurd.
 

The Human life form evolved to be a self-conscious, private body, privacy is inherently important to human life form, clearly. So yes we HAD to be separate, we value our unique private individualities. If we didn’t recognise our need for privacy, then our entire human system as it is currently playing out in the world would have been absolute disorder and chaos. 
 

Outside of human language, yes, there’s absolutely zero knowledge of anything, literally nothing known whatsoever. Just an infinite unknowable universe. 
 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Mellowmarsh

[James123]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

More "I only use one frame" non-duality preaching and endless argumentation to uphold that frame. Non-duality is not cognitive development.

I have no idea, how you guys are a mod. But, even the operator has no idea wtf he is talking about. 

So, I guess that's totally normal.

What the post has anything to do with non duality? 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, James123 said:

What the post has anything to do with non duality? 

Performative incredulousness to protect frame.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 hours ago, James123 said:

This is not about correcting or convincing but about helping, leading.

But it is always from negative / corrective frame. 

You are like a broken record on repeat ... Break free James!

[Joseph Maynor]

Does this derive from neti neti somehow?  This there is no ... [blah blah blah]?

E.g., There is no you, there is no separate self, nothing is happening, there are no facts, there are no thoughts, there is no shame, there is no shaming, there is no right and wrong, there is no separate self, there is no true and false, there are no words, there is no meaning, there is no me.  But ... there is feeling. 

That's interesting to me (but there's no me).  There are no thoughts, but thoughts are always bad.  Actually my thoughts are good, yours are bad, but nothing is happening here too.  If you push me on this I will say you are averse to what is being said.

And feeling good is the only metric so I need to always work myself up the emotional scale (but there is no myself paradoxically too).  

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, James123 said:

What the post has anything to do with non duality? 

I actually distinguish neo-advaita from nonduality.  Most people think they are the same or very similar.  Nonduality is way more profound.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

But it is always from negative / corrective frame. 

You are like a broken record on repeat ... Break free James!

Which negative? 😂 

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Performative incredulousness to protect frame.

What a fucking imagination.

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I actually distinguish neo-advaita from nonduality.  Most people think they are the same or very similar.  Nonduality is way more profound.

Both beliefs.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 hours ago, James123 said:

I have no idea, how you guys are a mod. But, even the operator has no idea wtf he is talking about. 

So, I guess that's totally normal.

But this reaction seems to reveal something too.  Generally speaking, people don't enjoy being told they are wrong.

[James123]

39 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But this reaction seems to reveal something too.  Generally speaking, people don't enjoy being told they are wrong.

It is just being wrong. That's all.

But, naming as negative belongs to a belief or assumption.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

It is just being wrong. That's all.

But, naming as negative belongs to a belief or assumption.

So any expression is okay to be here, but any naming is an erroneous thought (due to belief in right and wrong), which doesn't exist?

[James123]

33 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So any expression is okay to be here, but any naming is an erroneous thought (due to belief in right and wrong), which doesn't exist?

There is no such thing as exist or non exist as knowledge or imagination.

These are just words to talk, such as just exist or non exist. 

You can say, oh even words are a belief. No, just see, we are only talking with using words.

Like when you are hungry you eat. But, food is delicious or terrible are beliefs and assumptions.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, James123 said:

What a fucking imagination.

The frame is undeniably Neo-Advaita based on context (you do talk about the non-existence of self a lot), but we can reduce it to apophatic theology (speaking about God using negations) if you like, but that assumes you're indeed talking about God or something divine beyond intellectual comprehension. But if you also want to object to even that, then maybe it's just absolute/radical skepticism.

Regardless of the particular frame, my frame is challenging the need to stick to just one frame. There are also other forms of Advaita, or Westernized academic forms of idealism; there is cataphatic theology; there is realism, pragmatism, meta-theorism. You can say very similar things with these different frames. Hence also in some cases, disagreements may not be actual disagreements, just disagreements in how to state the same things.

And that is very often what I see, where disagreements are simply at level of frame, not at the level of substance, and where there is no desire to connect beyond frame, being open, honest, seeking and generous, instead closing down and defending, asking "questions" performatively, feigning incredulousness, ironically placing so much importance on your exact words, wording, phrasing, choices of framework, when in fact your substantial point, is beyond that.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Ramasta9]

13 hours ago, James123 said:

This is not about correcting or convincing but about helping, leading.

How many do you feel you have actually helped and lead tho my friend? These posts seem to stir more chaos and confusion than clarity and order.

Maybe there is something there that may being overlooked. I tell ya, Nahm and his forum, is not a good place, its a type of virus that segregates.

I've seen people go in there and come out more messed up then they began, why? because there is no true solid ground in the teachings.

Its purely surface / head level, the (whole) is missing, the human is missing, the body is missing.

I'd say, choose one forums and stick with it. Why are you playing ping-pong ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, James123 said:

There is no such thing as exist or non exist as knowledge or imagination.

These are just words to talk, such as just exist or non exist. 

You can say, oh even words are a belief. No, just see, we are only talking with using words.

Like when you are hungry you eat. But, food is delicious or terrible are beliefs and assumptions.

It's just something I noticed with neo-advaita.  It seems like a huge game of hide-and-seek with the semantic games.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hence also in some cases, disagreements may not be actual disagreements, just disagreements in how to state the same things.

And that is very often what I see, where disagreements are simply at level of frame

This is exactly the pattern James is stuck in, repeated over and over. 

Only James does not ask questions and probe into what the other says - giving them space to be heard - instead it is just more neo-advaita circles thrown at us like a philosopher hurling spaghetti at the wall...

Attempting to understand each other is love !!!

 

[Ramasta9]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is exactly the pattern James is stuck in, repeated over and over. 

Only James does not ask questions and probe into what the other says - giving them space to be heard - instead it is just more neo-advaita circles thrown at us like a philosopher hurling spaghetti at the wall...

Attempting to understand each other is love !!!

 

Some of us are seeing the act in real time, some are throwing the spaghetti back, some may even end up eating the spaghetti if they are not too careful hehe and yet I also see another, he hides without needing to, sees without engaging, but i wonder... who's playing who? 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Does this derive from neti neti somehow?  This there is no ... [blah blah blah]?

E.g., There is no you, there is no separate self, nothing is happening, there are no facts, there are no thoughts, there is no shame, there is no shaming, there is no right and wrong, there is no separate self, there is no true and false, there are no words, there is no meaning, there is no me.  But ... there is feeling. 

That's interesting to me (but there's no me).  There are no thoughts, but thoughts are always bad.  Actually my thoughts are good, yours are bad, but nothing is happening here too.  If you push me on this I will say you are averse to what is being said.

And feeling good is the only metric so I need to always work myself up the emotional scale (but there is no myself paradoxically too).  

Even saying there is NO ( insert label ) is simultaneously affirming the labels existence.
This mental activity may well be an artificially constructed oxymoron only found within the syntax of conceptual language, is still a natural part of the entire aggregate of this conscious living alive experience, which cannot be refuted or denied.

 

So it can’t even be not this, not that, both, yet neither, because even the concept of NON is all inclusive of the ALL

 

TIME to burn all those Advaita books, and move on to alternative ways of living, maybe just stop cancelling out what can never not be here. It’s a worn out record now, needs to be revised, updated to something more human and coherent.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Mellowmarsh