You are hereForums / Duality / The WORLD, in the Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance. Part Two

The WORLD, in the Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance. Part Two


23 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:

(Here is the link to the introduction and beginning of this topic discussion:) 

 http://nevernothere.com/forum/radius-three-contexts-appearance

http://www.nevernothere.com/forum/possibilities-radius-three-contexts-appearance-part-three

How does non-duality interact with the greater world?

In a word, it doesn’t interact.  

Many so called “spiritual teachers” say that of course we live in family, community and world.  They say this will be the integration of self realisation with normal life.  Only they don’t give it any emphasis at all.  It is a completely hollow statement.  Whereas people involved in this search are more honest and conveniently disassociate from world pain. They blatantly say the world is an illusion, or it is not my world.  I know of only one western teacher, who spends effort with girls schools in Afghanistan, or in that region. (I have edited this because I said only one.  But I am well aware of Indian Gurus with vast followings of over 100,000 that do great works for villager health and economic wellbeing, reforestation, and many other worldly programs.  I don't mention names because I would leave some important ones out.)

Our abilities to engage with the world, or even to allow ourselves to be informed about the world come from the same mechanism as our abilities to function as an individual.  We have a story or world view that has a small space in it for us to act.  If that story that we hold is very negative and has no space for us to move, we are its victim.  

Because of our negative story we have very bad feelings whenever we think of or engage with worldly events. Thus we are completely disempowered by our own story.  Remember, it is our story, and there are a million things happening, each with very imprecise knowledge, and each with a broad perspective of how we could interpret them.  For some reason, we are choosing to interpret the way that we choose.

I think that an optimum way in which to start this discussion would be with a giant reversal in thinking.  I would like to propose another viewpoint, even though I don’t expect you to adopt it.  Unfortunately It is too vast for me to do it justice.

 

the History of Violence and Humanity

The best I have comes as a rather long Youtube presentation of an academic paper.  I admit that I myself rarely take time to sit through long movies, but in this case I found the presenter qualified and interesting.  The audio was clear as were the graphics.  And the subject was fascinating, quick paced, and enough to hold interest.  It is the History of Violence and Humanity, by Professor Steven Pinker, presented at the University of Edinburgh, a couple of years ago.

All of our present stories may be similar, in acknowledging that we live in the most violent of times, and that war and murder are at an all-time high in humanity, with an eminent self-destruct on the horizon.

Pinker asks why should we count bodies, when every other statistic is based on the percentage of the total population?  Deaths are usually reported in a number per 100,000.

He assembles many period studies of war from 500 BC to the present.  He contrasts war and murder in stateless societies, (what some would call the Garden of Eden periods, the ultimate of hands off neoliberalism).  And then contrasts this with the rise of kingdoms and states, and central governments, to see where killing was the most.

He even covers prehistoric times by noting that 15% of all skeletal remains and mummies ever found have died a violent death, were murdered.

Perhaps you’ll never guess that he claims that the 21st century is by far the most pacified period in world history, and his bar graph for murder and war in these years is only one pixel high, compared to the mayhem of all previous periods.  Even Nagasaki and Hiroshima are low on the scales.  

I hope that you find the time to participate in this discussion.

 

 

0
Your rating: None
n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Of course this is all my opinion

I did watch the whole video you shared. Really nice, and I enjoyed it.

Please read my comments with the understanding that I am not claiming perfect knowledge, but there is definitely some real knowledge being discussed here (IMO).

Richard: "How does non-duality interact with the greater world?

In a word, it doesn’t interact."

................................

I'm going to discuss here some hot topics that may or may not challenge many dogmas of (pseudo) 'non-duality'. Lots being said here, so please bear with my possible typos and so on.

................................

I think this captures an idea that it is taboo (fear based) to engage/relate to the world if one believes that the body is meaningless, thus, all associated with body/mind is meaningless. Space and time are illusions and therefore do not need to be taken seriously with this kind of 'non-dual' mentality. So, ultimately, it becomes taboo to have any kind of world-view, it becomes taboo to believe/live in any kind of individuality. This kind of belief system disengages and rejects notions of being able to invoke change in society and life.

Yes, there is a mystery, a mystery about existence/reality that encourages us to not kill each other over competing ideologies. One reason being, we have to remain open to new knowledge and discoveries of our universe and of ourselves, which may later contradict knowledge we have thus far come to accept. However, an ultimate mystery of life and existence does not mean NO knowledge is possible (thanks science), just that we must be courageous and tolerant with each other. It also suggests we should not just accept any ideology or metaphysical assertion regarding reality/existence without an investigation.

Pseudo 'non-dual' philosophy can also be caught up in the idea that 'my world' is separate and unique, and the idea that it is impossible to know anything about it. This philosophy is an abandonment of any meaningful interactions with others (individuals) and with worldly life, and an (abandoning) absence of any power to influeunce or catalyze change. It is like sitting in a room sealed off from all possible reasons to change one's world-view and simply waiting for death. Life is meaningless to the pseudo non-dualist. It is a type of suicide, one that believes all is an illusion, thus no one can ever know anything about reality, ever. Knowledge is not possible and individuality is an illusion seems to be the conclusion. Thus, why interact with the world it is all an illusion? These ideas confuse individuality with duality, thus, the free fall into nihilism.

I don't think that non-duality leads us to a life of silent suicide, and an absence of knowledge and engagement with/about life and the world (universe - maybe even existence). This leads me to discuss what I referred to as pseudo (misunderstood) non-duality above and else where at this forum.

(Real) Non-duality suggests we are not separate and that our real existence transcends (but includes) individual life, that we have a shared reality, and we have (can discover) shared knowledge (science - mathematics).

Getting into metaphysics here; the manifestation or experience of space/time via a bodily form is in no way suggestive of duality. To think it does feels like an ego based observation trying to reconcile nonduality by suggesting it's all a mystery and enabling one to 'play' in their own dream world, which can't be proven false (because there is no way to determine if it is false). This is a perfect escape for the ego. It basically enables one to continue in an egoic perspective - world-view without ever having to accept any thing that contradicts that world-view.

I would argue that there are no forms of duality any where, ever. We are inherently one (connected), and space/time does not prove this otherwise. Rather space/time is a clear demonstration of being one and connected with all. What seems like separation to many is really a demonstration of our unity and oneness. Reach out and touch something - anything, that is a demonstration of oneness not separation. Living a life based on non-dual philosophy suggests and encourages interaction not disassociation and negation of values (nihilism).

Pseudo forms of non-dual philosophy stops before (does not consider or place value in) bodily existence (because a body is falsely equated with duality), knowledge (of any kind - falsely equated with duality), and adheres to these ideals over and against any openness to asserting any value to a bodily life and knowledge (of any kind).

It is ultimately a contradiction of a non-dual reality. Why do I say that? Because if existence were actually dualistic we would experience a disconnect from each other (what body?), a disconnect from a shared reality (everyone lives in their own dream world), and a disconnect from the ability to know any thing with any degree of certainty. Truly, if existence was dual, we would each have our own existences and no shared reality. This sounds exactly like the pseudo non-daulistic ideas I discussed above.

Being an individual body/mind does not necessarily follow a dualistic reality or dualistic experience of reality. If we really had a dualistic reality it follows that no individual can communicate and interact with another. Without a shared reality, I'm just talking to my self here. The idea that we each have our own 'point of view' of reality that no other can share is not exactly true.

Yes, there are things that happen in one brain that are not happening within another, but both of those brains are existing in a unified reality. The same physics used to describe one brain can be applied to all brains. Furthermore, with the advancement of technology that which seems hidden in one brain is visible to other brains.

Yes, the individual is unique and individual, but not separate or somehow existing in a box that prevents knowledge of the views and perceptions of another. One person sees a turtle in a cloud and another a hill with trees. However, those perceptions are born from a shared reality, and both individuals are looking at the same cloud. Being an individual gives us diversity not separation (duality). Furthermore, by description one person can get the other to 'see' what they saw in the cloud and vise versa.

I am going to use a few quotes from a philosopher named Baruch Spinoza to help explain what pseudo non-duality thinkers ignore.

"Baruch Spinoza

(i:P2) Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. [D3]

(i:P3) If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot cause [any effect in] the other. [P2, A4, A5]

(i:A5) Things that have nothing in common cannot be explained through one another, or, the concept of the one does not involve the concept of the other.

http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/spinquot.htm"

The pseudo forms of non-duality ignore these ideas. In my opinion, this is why it is common to find a disconnection and no interest in interacting in the world among (pseudo) 'non-dualistic' thinkers.

Real non-duality (and non-dual understanding) is quite the opposite of what I assert as pseudo non-duality. Genuine Realization demonstrates a positive, non-nihilistic, view of reality.

Have I veared off topic Richard? please forgive me if I have and help direct me back on topic.
- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Veered off topic? Not at all!

You have explained how the world has been put into free fall through disengagement.  I don’t find fault with one paragraph.  It is not exactly free-fall, since the controlling powers are doing their thing.  But their guidance seems dangerous to the vast majority.  We can still refer to Professor Pinker’s thesis in the context of violence, as something going right.  Still it seems risky.

You have described a process of discovery through engagement.  Does that mean you have told us a truth?  No, you have prepared us to discover our own version of a living truth with a wider base vision.  

We find ourselves on a planet full of people.  Of course we are one, and meant to engage. Or else we would be Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s Little Prince, living on our own planet.  We just have to dig deeper into the meaning of individuality.

There is a mystery about existence/reality.  But we are here to demystify it, not to further mystify it with talk of illusions.  Discovery requires that we continually plough the field of our basic beliefs and assumed axioms, on which we base our life philosophies.  When we get to a deeper foundation (simple perceptions and not just verbal constructs), we will immediately find a deeper understanding.

A deep flaw in disengaging from what is termed illusion, is that now you wander far afield from anything touching your life.  Your power to test your hypothesis becomes nil.  So you remain ungrounded.  Still we are probably not ready to discuss the world.  As you have pointed out, it is of the remotest interest to people that take themselves to be spiritual.  I say those people are carefully insulated from seeing the immense suffering needlessly caused, one to another.

It takes a new story to relax people, so they become able to contemplate the world.  I hope that we can start to write one.

n/a
melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Richard

You say: ''There is a mystery about existence/reality. But we are here to demystify it, not to further mystify it with talk of illusions. Discovery requires that we continually plough the field of our basic beliefs and assumed axioms, on which we base our life philosophies. When we get to a deeper foundation (simple perceptions and not just verbal constructs), we will immediately find a deeper understanding.''

___________

Response: There is no mystery about existence/reality.

Wanting to demystify it creates the very illusion you are trying to avoid. Existence / reality has no way of knowing itself from a deep human perception. The impossibility of knowing reality confounds the mind of man who want's to know. Those who claim they know - do not.

Simple perceptions do not find a deeper understanding.Perception is duality.Duality is the illusion you don't want to talk about.Non-duality is reality.Non-duality is duality.Non-duality and duality are the same thing from different points of view - as are reality and illusion.

The existence of a perception in Oneness sensing another creates duality and illusion. Reality doesn't have a point of view. Therefore everything you claim to know is illusory, it is a point of view. Doesn't mean the illusion is worthless with no quality - quality, meaning and worth are born in the illusion of perception which are appearances. When one hears the word illusion does not mean that we stop participating in it or stop giving it any meaning, worth or value. We quite willingly participate in the illusion because we have no other choice as we are quite literally the ones creating the illusion in the first place. We can know the illusion, but we can never know the foundation existence/reality within which the whole illusion arises.

The perceptual experience of an object like your physical body in a material world is an emergent phenomenon created by the perception itself, thus making the material world an illusion since the perception is all there is here. Take away the perception and you are left with an actual reality as it really is, not how it is perceived.

Forget about what is perceived... find out who is perceiving? - find out what is perception?

The perceiver is the referent, zero point, or fulcrum of the duality. duality is the dream we have self created. It is all there is. This is it.

We cannot change the dream world - we can only change ourself, if we all changed ourself individually - the world would automatically fit that mould - the world can only be how we are. As we change... the world changes right along side with us because we are the world. We're not looking at the world from a distance and thinking oh those poor starving children or those poor homeless migrants with no place to call their own, no, we can't do that, because there is no one looking at the world, the world is the looked upon, in other words, we are the world.

We have to stop taking words literally like the word ''illusion''

This word does not give us the impetuous to say well let's stop caring because nothing is real anyway. This is a kind of suicide. No, I say life is much more intelligent than that. Life is extraordinary intelligence it has never failed to figure how to make things work out in the way they do, a perfect example is the human mind/body/brain...what extraordinary intelligence this is.

And yet this same extraordinary intelligence, poison's and pollutes it's own air, soil and water supply. It even poison's and pollutes it's own body.The very basic commodities needed to sustain it's life force are taken for granted never understanding that without caring for this delicate eco system the whole illusion will collapse.

But, it's up to us what kind of dream we want to live, we are the creators and destroyers of our dreams, this is plain to see.

From belief to clarity.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
The world is a complex system of power

The world is a complex system of institutions and power, and everything seems to be tied to everything else.  It is proving not very stable, so if you change one thing, everything could come crashing down.  Lehman Brothers Brokerage failed in 2008, and most of the world’s money systems when into tilt.  Even today the world is not recovered from that episode, and many people are worse off than before.

It is not hard to see why people get glazed eyes from considering world problems.  It is also difficult to imaging how any of these gargantuan world power equations can begin to change for the better, with so many conflicting interests.  Just jigger them a little bit and someone starts screaming. Besides there is nowhere that I can enter into the play.

Finally you must come to the conclusion that any solution to world problems has to start small, and operate in parallel to the system that is broken.  These new and old systems have to be compatible, not alternative, even if we know for a fact that the old system is corrupt and rotten to the core.  There is no practical way to uproot it.  Furthermore there should be many “Beta Tests” operating at the same time.  The balance of nature is served through diversity, and mono cropping is a recipe for disaster.  Same with political and economic system mono cropping, which parody natural flows.  They become resilient and flexible through diversity.

I think that it is quite clear that major world leaders are not going to innovate anything new.  They are just going to ride the predominant viewpoints and make their excuses. Or they will seesaw back and forth between the two major alternatives, as seen through the two party political system.  It is a system described as the least worst of known governments, but rarely makes a go of it.

Innovation has to come from the small and the distressed.  Greece looked like a possibility earlier in the year, but who knows what will come of that?  The Greeks did offer a massive service to the world, just by putting European bureaucracy under the spotlight for 150 consecutive days.  Would that we could glimpse into the secret workings of America or Russia with such a high powered microscope.

Adopting these considerations, you are able participate in multiple experiments to improve society.  You can also work to ensure those alternatives are legal, encouraged and funded.

What are some of these arenas of change?

  • Local alternative education is an interest for parents.
  • Maybe it is a tutoring system that transforms learning into excellence.
  • Maybe it is town hall meetings that can create local consensus.
  • Maybe it is local activist groups that can field local politicians and get behind budget allocations and needed city improvements.
  • Maybe it is activities that support local business and local banking that will invest in and expand the local businesses.
  • Local initiatives to tackle pollution can spread to statewide legislation.
  • Local initiative for underdeveloped areas can spread to statewide programs.

Change in action comes through a change in rhetoric, and a consensus of what is true and what is possible. Nothing can happen without engagement, speaking out, and following through.  And it cannot happen in the atmosphere of frustration.  This activity has to be seen as satisfying and fun. That is why we are talking of three contexts of appearance Self, World, and Space of Possibility, and why we insist they are synergetic, that wisdom gained in any one arena gives wisdom in all three.

To restate what we have said:

  • Big change can only happen through the demonstrations of multiple small start-ups. 
  • Legal rights for alternative systems should be fought for and ensured.
  • There is definitely a place for you in this context of world change.
  • In fact, it can never happen without you.

 

What is the objective of what we have done here?  We have taken a possible story that world pain is (somebody else's and) an illusion for me.  It is not my world because I live in an evolved consciousness, is a story that equates to zero participation.  This we have transformed into a story where the world is vitally dependant on your input for its survival.

Are either of these two stories a breakthrough in truth?  Probably not, but one immobilises you and the other empowers you to have fun with you fellow community members.

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Nondual world

Here is what I think we have clarified thus far.

From the discussion we have had up to this point it feels appropriate to claim we live in a nondual world. A nondual world Excludes any and all duality; can't have both.

I am assuming we (already) established a nondual world does not include duality? So we can cast aside ideas/things associated with duality?

It seems reasonable that a nondual thinker would not shun or turn away from participating in worldly things, nor object to even being a politician or active in one's local community. However, it will not do us any good to start judging people based on their participation, just that whatever a person does is what they do. Whatever their heart chooses to do is what it is.

It also seems reasonable to remain unattached to any conclusions or 'world-views' we establish as real. Why would any of us attach to any ideology, which would ultimately create shackles on that person. So, we are doing an experiment, as Richard has said many times, and that is it.

(IMO) So, our discussion to this point has clarified one of the three fields of creating a system of philosophy (I'm not sure that is how Richard sees what we are doing). It is preferable to me to think of these things like this. Just to reiterate them:

1: [world] - Metaphysics = Nondual existence
2: [individuality] - Epistemology (knowledge - how do we know)
3: [space of possibility] - Axiology (value & beauty)

These 3 contexts seem to be another way of terming the 3 contexts Richard discussed in the 1st thread.

The further we move along here from 1 to 3, the more difficulty we will have at creating a consensus for all of us. But, that is ok, we can move forward without banging our head on the wall. If you think we are out of our minds for even playing with these ideas and working on something like this, then move along, no worries.

XD

Is there anyone else that wants to add anything here or has some alternative ideas regarding the 'World' context of our discussion? It would be nice to see anyone with different ideas regarding what Richard or I have said please do that here, not somewhere else. It helps keep the discussion from being spread out in multiple forums. Heck, Richard may have something else to add/take away or discuss as well.

- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
A summary is good

Above I had commented that I find no fault with any paragraph.  That didn’t mean that I would describe it that way.  For instance the distinction of (pseudo) non duality is something that I probably wouldn’t use.  On first reflection I thought, why define a “real” non duality from a pseudo, unless you are attached to it and are defending non duality.  I am not attached to the term.  I have no non-duality to sell.  Generally I would comment that one less concept to rely on, the more empowered we become.

“Why would any of us attach to any ideology, which would ultimately create shackles on that person.  So, we are doing an experiment, as Richard has said many times, and that is it.” BINGO

1. Then I thought why not distinguish a pseudo philosophy from a valuable one?  So let’s make a definition.  I say that everyone has values.  Even no-values is a value of sorts.  Values are the basis of all our judgements and (I say) of all of our feelings.  So that everything that we do is directed by our sense of value, (which are our feelings).  We are living our life so that we can come to believe that we are doing good, or doing the best that we can according to the circumstances and these values.

Therefore a worthy philosophy adds to our ability to believe we are doing good in life.  A pseudo philosophy degrades our ability to believe we can direct our life. A pseudo philosophy may offer us only the excuses, so that we can learn to stomach what doesn’t work about our life.

2.  Can we judge a person by their engagement and  participation?  Man is a social being, and in any age past hunter-gatherer, we are dependent on the other.  Remember, there is no such thing as a “heart that chooses to do whatever it does”. There is only a bodily feeling in the chest, and there are only pseudo and valuable philosophies that either recognise that we are codependent or pretend that we are self sufficient islands.  The success or failure of those two ways of seeing things, perpetuates each its own context.

This is not an injunction to participate with everything.  But one would think there would be participation somewhere with wife and kids, schools and community.

3.a: [world] - Metaphysics = Non dual existence. (I would simplify it to something outside of my daily routine that breaks into my life with various levels of insistence.)

b: [individuality] - Epistemology, knowledge - how do we know.   (I would simplify it to just ME, and my perceived desires, problems and satisfactions.)

c: [space of possibility] - Axiology, value & beauty  (I would simplify it to Human potential to grow and to know, however imprecisely.)

If we are to be anything approaching scientists, in order to discuss a consensus we have to agree upon a metricThere must be a measure to what we are saying, and a measure after we put what we are saying into practice.  I suggest that metric could be our anxiety level.  Are we getting more worried and fearful, or are we getting less immersed in bad feelings.

Today our feelings might be all over the map, and seem like a metric that doesn’t point in any direction. But I am suggesting that after systematically applying what we find, we will become more free to cross the borders of these three contexts at will, and we will feel good about, and grow from our participation, wherever we choose to engage.

 

One possible way to begin to discuss philosophies, is for each of us to share what our philosophy has given us, to enhance our abilities to intereact in these three contexts. . . . What has it taken away?

n/a
melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Richard

You say: For instance the distinction of (pseudo) non duality is something that I probably wouldn’t use. On first reflection I thought, why define a “real” non duality from a pseudo, unless you are attached to it and are defending non duality. I am not attached to the term. I have no non-duality to sell. Generally I would comment that one less concept to rely on, the more empowered we become.

_________

Response: That is a very intelligent observation Richard.

I'm sure Jared is a lovely person, but his comments about the nature of reality are somewhat distorted, but that's not his fault, I've realised that now. I am over getting personal with Jared. His belief's have nothing to do with me. In so far as his belief's in my opinion are slightly distorted which I've always known. Since anyone claiming to know ultimate reality is in my opinion a fake. The knower of ultimate reality is unknown, anyone claiming to know is an illusion. I find it ironic that he creates the very thing he deny's. Quite a whimsical non-consistent character is our Jared...no offence Jared.

You can sell what you know, but not what you can't know, trying to sell what you can't know is like wanting your cake and eating it too, it's pleasure seeking, too much pleasure seeking turns to pain. There is no such state as happiness or pleasure, in wanting these states you automatically create unhappiness, pain etc.... they are the same thing. So all this stuff about heart-fire is a load of old cobblers.One can get the same sensation just thinking about having sex with your partner without actually doing it, it's just a sensation....it comes and goes, it's not real...The body does not care about having heart-fire sensation... all it cares about is reproducing... Wo/Man is a pleasure seeker for him/herself, not for anything else, even seeking union with God is a self-indulgent activity of human. Reality / existence doesn't give two hoots about all that stuff...and that's why the world is in such a mess.....Chop wood carry water.

Namaste.

From belief to clarity.

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Paradoxical

Melanie: "I find it ironic that he creates the very thing he deny's. Quite a whimsical non-consistent character is our Jared...no offence Jared."

I am aware. Was aware many years ago when I started. It is intentional.

Melanie: "There is no such state as happiness or pleasure, in wanting these states you automatically create unhappiness, pain etc.... they are the same thing. So all this stuff about heart-fire is a load of old cobblers.One can get the same sensation just thinking about having sex with your partner without actually doing it, it's just a sensation....it comes and goes, it's not real..."

Heart fire is far from the feeling of sex or anything that is conditional. It is the feeling of existence, it is the source of love, it is unbroken and in all directions at every point. It is the presence of happiness. It does not come and go, it is an unending, perpetual, bliss-filled presence, that demonstrates itself as transcending any and all conditions forever - now. But, a person who is not familiar with this will be confused, and yes (I have perfect faith in this - call that what you want) everyone has free 'access' to heart fire in any moment and time and space. It is a matter of how the body/mind relates with our Transcendent Self.

Richard: "For instance the distinction of (pseudo) non duality is something that I probably wouldn’t use. On first reflection I thought, why define a “real” non duality from a pseudo, unless you are attached to it and are defending non duality. I am not attached to the term. I have no non-duality to sell. Generally I would comment that one less concept to rely on, the more empowered we become."

The intention is to clarify what is nondual and what is not. I have made it many times clear I do not attach to any philosophy. Guess I need to reiterate that in all my posts.

"- Jared

I do not feel that there is a perfect philosophy, thus, no need to ever get mixed up in any belief that one version or kind is IT. Sorry if my comments and way of discussing comes off as that way." -> this is my new signature.

What was intended with the use of pseudo non-duality is to help minimize the number of concepts that can be connected in this experiment. So less is more, is a great idea and something I agree with.

Richard: "Remember, there is no such thing as a “heart that chooses to do whatever it does”. There is only a bodily feeling in the chest, and there are only pseudo and valuable philosophies that either recognise that we are codependent or pretend that we are self sufficient islands. The success or failure of those two ways of seeing things, perpetuates each its own context."

Ok, and understood. Just to clarify again. I do not feel that heart fire is just a feeling in the chest. Upon no bodily appearance, in the Transcendent, this is the feeling of existing/existence. It does not rely on a body/mind, but can be recognized via a body/mind. It also has a anatomical type of manifestation within the body and appears concentrated in the chest region.

Richard: "...and there are only pseudo and valuable philosophies that either recognise that we are codependent or pretend that we are self sufficient islands."

This sums up the difference of the pseudo nonduality and nonduality almost. The codependent idea cannot cover a lone person surviving in the wild. Maybe we could examine that a bit more. Unless, codependent includes the environment (like animals and rivers).

I do not think anxiety is a good metric. I think a metric should have be able to be checked by all. Something that is objective enough to help cut away unnecessary ideas.

Richard: "...there are only pseudo and valuable philosophies that either recognise that we are codependent or pretend that we are self sufficient islands."

That is why I like the quote above.

Richard: "One possible way to begin to discuss philosophies, is for each of us to share what our philosophy has given us, to enhance our abilities to intereact in these three contexts. . . . What has it taken away?"

Can't claim it has given me anything, {edit} but it does allow me to discuss Realization with more people. One could say if I were to describe my life and were to put it in some kind of intellectual paradigm, then you could say my writings are an ongoing expose of that. {end edit}

Don't need it, don't use it, and am not really interested in it at all. I do this because I don't. Because I do what I do, it ends up getting placed in the crackpot category often. If that was a concern, I would not tell anyone ever. :]]]]]

I'm already happy. However, there are people that will benefit from experiements like you started here Richard. Who and how is not necessary to figure out, but if we present something that suggests people relate through love, kindness, and compassion with each other we have helped more than anyone can measure. {edit} This has value in my opinion.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Jared

''Heart fire is far from the feeling of sex or anything that is conditional. It is the feeling of existence, it is the source of love, it is unbroken and in all directions at every point. It is the presence of happiness. It does not come and go, it is an unending, perpetual, bliss-filled presence, that demonstrates itself as transcending any and all conditions forever - now. But, a person who is not familiar with this will be confused, and yes (I have perfect faith in this - call that what you want) everyone has free 'access' to heart fire in any moment and time and space. It is a matter of how the body/mind relates with our Transcendent Self.''

______

Response:

I'm sure every animal on the planet is buzzing around in their own little world with much the same grand self-importance as the human animal. Only the human being makes it a big deal even to the point of making money from it, which is a grotesque thing to do.

Nothing is in a condition except your belief in a theologian deity. There is nothing superior to what is already here right now already perfect which is you. There is nothing transcending any and all conditions - that would be like you coming down from your assumed superior position just to check out what condition your uncondition is in. How ridiculous is that?

You say everyone has free 'access' to heart fire.

Then why are you selling it ?

The Transcendent Self is a kooky idea someone cooked up because this amazing sense of being alive right now just wasn't enough for them, so apparently had to invent A God to trust....In God we trust... what a joke.

Have you ever walked up to a beautiful sweet perfect delicate rose growing wild in nature and shouted in it's presence ... are you feeling ecstatic like me? does the rose answer you? does it say..oh yes Jared I'm feeling so blissed out right now I could burst.

Do roses feel that way?

Your feeling is a thought, thoughts are not real, why can't you just accept that... you stick to a faith of an unending, perpetual, bliss-filled presence, but why do feel the need to have a faith in what is already this self shining presence here now?

From belief to clarity.

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
:]

I have heard you feel this way about many things I have said around here before.

Why do you keep insisting I am selling it? Who are you selling your dogma to? I don't buy it. I see this constant beating of your drum as an effort to shut down conversation. If I told you that my left hand was cut off would you just tell me that is an illusion? Would it seem reasonable to say anything like that to me? No matter how much I belive it is an illusion, my left hand is gone and can't be used.

I love flowers. I have a ton of sunflowers grown from seed in my yard. I talk to the flowers and smell them, and I lift up their stalks when the flowers weigh them down.

Melanie: "Nothing is in a condition except your belief in a theologian deity."

Why even make up stuff like this?

Melanie: "There is nothing transcending any and all conditions - that would be like you coming down from your assumed superior position just to check out what condition your uncondition is in. How ridiculous is that?"

Who has assumed a position? Is this another assertion of how I feel, and that I'm basically here to play super guru and rope you all into a scam? You make this push often in your comments with me. I ignore it, and looks like I will have to continue that. Don't like me having books for sale? Get over it. Want to slander me and use that as something to put me down, then keep at it. It is just really off the mark and shows you don't really know me.

How about sharing comments on what we are actually talking about?

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
''If I told you that my left

''If I told you that my left hand was cut off would you just tell me that is an illusion? Would it seem reasonable to say anything like that to me? No matter how much I belive it is an illusion, my left hand is gone and can't be used.''

Response:

Your hand has been cut off, but the point I am trying to make is the 'you' is still here even though your hand is not here. So was the hand ever you - or were you the hand? Only that which is fabricated, namely a person, would have the need to say the cutting off my hand is real.

___________

Jared: ''I love flowers. I have a ton of sunflowers grown from seed in my yard. I talk to the flowers and smell them, and I lift up their stalks when the flowers weigh them down.''

Response:

I asked you a question ..''if you shouted in the presence of a rose...are you feeling ecstatic like me? does the rose answer you?

You haven't answered the question have you? maybe because we both know it is a silly question, we know the rose will not answer you because the rose doesn't need to confirm or validate it's presence.

The thoughts of bliss, heart-fire, and all that spiritual jargon is fabricated having no real reality in existence whatsoever.The wannabes want to pretend, that they are spiritual, but only that which is not real can be pretended. That which is real is spirit.The spirit or Life force is already here and has no need for chakra, kundalini tantra, meditation and all that fabricated tripe.

Just because one has not included this stuff in their spiritual practice does not mean the person is not fully realised which is what you yourself have implied right here on this forum. It's almost like you out of vain want to forcefully create an appearance of being a perfect spiritual man. But what I'm saying is, it's all bullshit and you can't handle that. I don't mean to be harsh to you personally Jared, please do not misunderstand me and my purpose at this forum.

___________

Jared: ''Want to slander me and use that as something to put me down''

Response:

No one is trying to put you down, why feel that way, why be insecure. You appear uncomfortable with your own teachings. If you are confident in what you are writing about you should be up for critique, not be getting all defensive. You are free to sell your version of enlightenment, it's not something I could sell, maybe I could sell something fictional, that wouldn't bother me, but to write about something real, then that would bother me,... but it's your life to do what you want.

From belief to clarity.

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Again

Totally ignoring the conversation again. Do you understand how conversations work?

I have been through many talks with you. You have the same response to every thing. Maybe I do as well.

......................................................

Melanie: "The thoughts of bliss, heart-fire, and all that spiritual jargon is fabricated having no real reality in existence whatsoever.The wannabes want to pretend, that they are spiritual, but only that which is not real can be pretended. That which is real is spirit.The spirit or Life force is already here and has no need for chakra, kundalini tantra, meditation and all that fabricated tripe.

Heart fire is not a thought, I can't force you to believe that or not - don't care to either. One's bodily relationship with Realization determines the awakening of one's spiritual anatomy. As the ego is burnt up so shall the hearts awaken in accordance with ego death. No pretending, not thought based, just pure boundless bliss and love.

Melanie: "Just because one has not included this stuff in their spiritual practice does not mean the person is not fully realised which is what you yourself have implied right here on this forum. It's almost like you out of vain want to forcefully create an appearance of being a perfect spiritual man. But what I'm saying is, it's all bullshit and you can't handle that. I don't mean to be harsh to you personally Jared, please do not misunderstand me and my purpose at this forum."

What I have said is that Realization is necessary for ego death and for the person to be totally released of it's (ego's) psycho-physical grip, which includes the awakening of the spiritual anatomy. I say 'full' Realization (Enbrightenment) includes the body/mind's total process of ego death, which includes the awakening of the spiritual anatomy and the unending, free flowing heart bliss throughout the body/mind. Realization of Self is necessary for whole bodily realization. Realization dawns, then these changes will follow. I will Never back down on that, it is very Real, but it is up to you, not me, to understand/ignore that or not.

You have said these things are bs many times. Your comments of calling that bs is not something 'I can't handle'. That is a pretty funny statement. Puffing your self up much? I don't make my self out to be a perfect spiritual man, never said anything of the like. Moreover, I have also made it clear that Enbrightenment is a living word and definition, and open to critique and adjustments. I am currently in the midst of critically analyzing all of my books and teachings. I don't just write and believe it is perfect.

Melanie: "No one is trying to put you down, why feel that way, why be insecure. You appear uncomfortable with your own teachings. If you are confident in what you are writing about you should be up for critique, not be getting all defensive. You are free to sell your version of enlightenment, it's not something I could sell, maybe I could sell something fictional, that wouldn't bother me, but to write about something real, then that would bother me,... but it's your life to do what you want."

I am open to critiques that actually critique my comments. Not empty statements and repetition of an idea that all is illusion. That is how I feel about practically all you say here. You should actually learn to participate in discussions instead of trying to shut them down. I'm going to ignore your attempts to lure me into some kind of reactionary response. This kind of stuff you keep doing only serves to turn conversations off topic. It does not show me being insecure or uncomfortable with what I share regarding (Heart) Realization.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Jared

''Heart fire is not a thought, I can't force you to believe that or not - don't care to either. ''

Response: Of course it's a thought, you would not know what something is without thinking about it. Human knowledge about awakening or realisation comes from human created language/words - Every word is a man-made creation.

Even a feeling is a thought, given man-made meaning otherwise what would we know about the feeling?

Life is already awake - the moon and the sun do not sleep they are enlightenment / or reality without knowing.
The sun does not say to itself..boy, I'm feeling really hot tonight, neither does the moon moan about not having it's own light.

Anything known is illusory... it is like the contents of consciousness attempting to know consciousness which cannot be known.

To say something is real with absolute certainty is giving false hope to people. Also, one would have to be of a low intellect, not intelligence, to be seduced by such a claim.

Life is it's own intelligence. It is the intellect that is the cause of all confusion and misery in the world we see today.

_________

''Enbrightenment is a living word''

Response: Words are not living, they are dead thoughts. The belief in a thought, word, or feeling is what gives it the energy to be there in the first place...and thus appearing as if real, but this real is nothing more than illusion.

From belief to clarity.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Hi Melanie,

I can’t claim any special knowledge about Jared.  If I have an issue with him now or in the future, I’ll take it up directly with him.  Now I find myself talking with you, so you are the subject of my interest.

 

Did you every read that book, The Celestine Prophecy by James Redmond?  I am just reminded of that book which made a big impression on me in the mid-nineties.  I am almost curious to know what happened with that guy, but I don’t want to get distracted now.  There was a lot of beautiful ideas in it, that made a lasting impression on me.

 

It was sort of a “treasure hunt”, and this guy was in Peru.  One thing he discovered was that whatever happened to him, or whomever he encountered, even if by accident, it had an important message for him.  He learned to be very observant and tune in to every person with his full attention.  I have sort of been that way for the 20 years since I read it.  If I don’t find that important “click”, then at least I tried.

 

Another thing that I remember now is the way they treated children in the book.  They always talked directly to them and never behind their back or treating them like an inferior or an object.  That has always stuck with me too, both with children and with adults.

 

I took some time with your last thread, (I think it’s after this one), but it moved pretty rapidly and was difficult to grasp a central theme to discuss.

 

Well then, on this thread you say things like, there is no such thing as happiness or pleasure, (for you obviously, since you have often said that one person knows nothing of the inner workings of another).

 

You also say that heart-fire cannot be important (for you obviously), and even if it IS “just” a sensation, I suppose that we can allow others to gain their own significance from it.  To distill every human down to one and the same motivation is an enormous assumption, (the sex drive I think that you are saying here).

 

If I have ever suggested there is a lot of sadness in your writing, I think you have denied it in the past.  Yet people read books, they know a sad story from a dispassionate story.  There is really no mystery or question about it.

 

You seem to have enormous energy.  Where do you want to channel it, to understand what you wish to understand?

 

 

Thanks for this introspective honesty

n/a
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
A summary could be good.

While our other contributors are exploring their beliefs and positions I can draw your attention to one thing.  If you read carefully what each of them is saying, there is a lot that rings true, and some that seems exaggerated. For each of us it might be different things.  This is true, even though we might choose not to adopt their style of discussion (one or the other).

Isn’t that a great demonstration of how the world operates?  It’s what we are discussing here.  Conflict arises, and each side has some valid points, but not one of those (valid) points is to bring the discussion closer into accord.  Each of them has the (verbal) story that they would loose something, if they could see anything positive about the other.  They continue to be robots each to their story, exactly what I am talking about. We’ll see if it ever softens in our running example.

1.  I chose three contexts where all people spend most of their time.  What else is worthy of discussion?  Actually we are each always:

  • an individual, with the challenges of relationship and self-esteem.
  • in the world, with the challenges to meet legal, economic and perhaps ongoing physical conflicts or war.
  • and we always live in a context of possibility for growth and knowing.

A central theme of my writing, and what is up for discussion here is that our abilities in each of these domains depends on our linguistic viewpoint, and what we believe is possible in our life, and our willingness to examine that, (just call it our self-talk).  This is especially obvious in the individual and world domains and it is true in the beginning with the domain of possibilities.  The domain of possibilities, must also have the possibility that this linguistic link is not totally true, or it would not really be a domain of all possibilities.  

Some people might be saying that this third domain trumps the other two, and that by entering into this domain, you resolve all problems in the other two.  I would hasten to observe that you don’t really resolve anything, if you are still carrying your old verbal baggage.  You just avoid the feelings of urgency, and of course your conditions in domain one and two continue to deteriorate. Some of our discussions could be reserved for this third domain, which is coming, such as from the above posts:

  • Metaphysics = Non dual existence
  • Epistemology, knowledge - how do we know what we know
  • Axiology, value & beauty

Values should be included somewhere, because what is the point of being human, if it is not to live a better life?

2.  We noted above the (my) desire to avoid discussing collective concepts, like “the Mind”, that make for a catchall term of our functions of mentality.  We can find links between thoughts, words, memories, emotions and anxiety, but using a pure concept like mind obscures all these links and substitutes more conceptual and invented “tendencies”.

We also noted that Memory is the father/mother of all human creativity, and without the notion of a past, thoughts and words would probably just circulate on a few hundred grunts and moans that gave hunter/gatherers their level of cooperation.  Something like the thoughts and speech of a pack of wolves.

Let’s go back to three fundamental assumptions:

I.  Something is here, and we can perceive something about it, some of the times, (if it is in our window of human perceptions).  I also said that we can’t know what percent of our perception is our own interpretation and what part is actually the perceived.  The interpretation fraction is what makes this medium “virtual”.

II.  Then we could say the fundamental ability in any context, is the ability to play/create in this virtual world of communication and language.   The reason that it can be moulded and “evolved” is only because it has a virtual component. It is fixed only to our dreams and imagination, but acknowledging that it is the building block of ourselves and the world as we know them.

III.  Then any worthy philosophy adds to our ability to believe we are doing good in life.  A pseudo philosophy degrades our ability to believe we can direct our life in these three contexts. A pseudo philosophy may offer us only the excuses, so that we can learn to stomach what doesn’t work about our life.  It might also numb certain feelings, to make us believe that it is working.

Arriving at any ability in axiom II. requires that we are able to recognise and deconstruct any faulty or possibly faulty axioms (philosophies of III.).

n/a
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Just Another Story

I feel satisfied with what we have said so far.  If there was more discussion on it, I might clarify some points, but I think that it is pretty clear.

I am saying that the entry point for every human action or malfeasance is the story that is held behind it. (Not just about the world, about everything created by humans.)  Therefore there are no human tendencies, apart from these, their (conscious or unconscious) believed-in stories. All human feelings and agression is built into these stories.  Yes, they might have been acting out these same (tragic) stories for a very long time.

Things happen in the world that seemingly cannot be explained. The world is a mystery that can be continually explored.  Do these exceptions disprove my thesis?  Remember, I am not proving anything.  I am demonstrating what works.  If it works 99% of the time or 99.99% it is valuable to apply it.  The other .001% you can call a spiritual experience.

 

So then to set up this argument I must create a story, that is presently troubling the world, and causing all the misery and destruction.  I will try my hand at it in this way.

1.  Hunter gatherers had a hierarchy of individual power but didn’t have much of wealth, only what they could carry.  They shared the spoils of the hunt so there were no taxes.

When humanity stopped the nomadic life, they kept herds and later planted crops.  Then big families held big lands and big herds and began to accumulate wealth.  Food was stored for times of bad harvests.  Kings had tax collectors and took tribute from the members of society.  Armies plundered the neighbours and their wealth was confiscated.  The neighbours were killed or enslaved.  Other forms of wealth were the numbers of serfs that worked your lands.  There were minerals, metals and jewels.

There might have been usury, but for what purpose?  You weren’t going to build a factory with high productivity and pay back the loan.  If anything merchants borrowed to build a ship and stock it, and go trade for spices and exotically coloured dyes, for the new fashion in clothing and perfumes.

In summery,

Wealth was of the earth and the “real economy” only.  Assets were used up, human labor and livestock died, and everything had a lifespan, just like with the ecology of nature. Creation, maintenance and usage, and death and return to earth.

2.  Fast forward: a human story was created called a token of real wealth (money, so wealth can be more portable).  Libraries can be written about money, but let’s just say one thing, they forgot to allow money to die.  Yes, individual tokens can loose value, even with hyperinflation.  But on the whole, money lives forever.  This might work while there’s an ever increasing demand for money, but ultimately it cannot sustain. It is contrary to the nature of planet earth.

I am trying to illustrate a point that is hard to approach, because how do you measure this thing called money.  (I’ll stick to around 2011 to keep statistic ratios.)  M0 is world currency, about $5 Trillion, M1 is with checking accounts about $25 T,  M2 has saving accounts in it = $60 T, M3 market funds and long term, $75 T.  World GDP for that year was also in about the $72 T range.

What I am saying is that there is a substantial fraction of that $75 T value of money, that has no place to go in the real world to make its profit.  You could say the real world is worth much more than $75 T, but it is not for sale.  If it was, it would be worth nothing, because there would be no buyer.

3. So enter the virtual economy and the world of currency and futures markets that are used to establish (and prop up) these values.  

Daily trading on:

$5.3  T Forex, currency speculation

$.437 T Futures and commodities

$.191 T Equities

$.028 T  NYSE

 

$6 T per day or $2,190 T per year in trading equals 3042% of the total movement of worldwide goods and services.  (2011, Today it must be much worse.)

In some places it says that maybe 1% of the population own half of the world assets.  40 million people (not their kids) are trading like mad in search of a higher rate of return, on a planetary movement of trade that is not interested in paying that interest.

With these as the rules of play, every kind of scandal, short term thinking, exaggeration and aggression has occurred in the world.  And it is all a made-up human story, cast only in thoughts and words.

4. The point is to create another story that gives you the space to make a difference.  We said up above that any solution to world problems has to start small, and operate in parallel to the system that is broken.  These new and old systems have to be compatible, not alternative, even if we know for a fact that the old system is corrupt and rotten to the core.  There is no practical way to uproot it. 

The proposed solution is for each of us to engage with a complimentary local currency, that has the potential to become more or less independent from the world monetary system.  These are Beta tests, and if the only way to participate is to buy some (Bit coin) with our normal currency, then it isn’t independent from world money, and really only a practice run.

Complimentary currency is a very big topic, with maybe 1000 ongoing experiments worth mentioning.  To be worth working with, it must have the potential of creating mutual credits (out of nothing), like world currencies.  It is local so I know you, and it is built on agreed upon parameters and TRUST.  It is not an alternative to world money, but a complimentary mix that enhances stability, resilience and the local economy.  It redistributes wealth to the local, starting small.  It is transparent, since nowadays trades are cleared through smart phones on a central server.  It is better for governments too, because taxes are paid in real time.

I am not going to discuss the pros and cons of different systems.  Sure many have been poorly designed and failed.  I may leave some links for further research.

What have we accomplished?

  • We have demonstrated a verbal story that demystifies almost every injustice that man has done to man. 
  • We have declared that any solution has to be in parallel and ongoing in a complimentary way.
  • We have shown where every person can begin to inform themselves and to participate.
  • We have empowered you to function in the context of the world.
n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
100% Spiritual

Sorry if this appears new, I edited it a tiny bit.

Richard: "If it works 99% of the time or 99.99% it is valuable to apply it. The other .001% you can call a spiritual experience."

If we are speaking in traditional nondual terms, I feel it is ok to say that we are living a spiritual experience 100% of the time. The small percentage remains a mystery, but the value of that mystery and the depth of that mystery (cannot ever be 'figured out' - nor is one inclined to seek to try and figure IT out) means, in a way, it's transcendent in value in comparison to the large percentage of 'non-mystery'. If we do have some kind of knowledge about something it does not follow that it is not spiritual, just that we have some kind of intelligence about it.

I also feel that we can think of it in other ways, like the percentage of mystery should be larger, or maybe even flipped so that the mystery is the largest percentage of daily life. I am wondering if we do this if it will open up the realm of possibility. Thinking that we are not attached to what works, that we can explore new ways when we want. So, here is something we can still consider. But it seems important to remember it is ok to have mystery, no need to demystify every thing. In other words, we don't have to feel like there is an end to that consideration, the space of possibility, just because something works 99% of the time.

Richard: "What have we accomplished?

We have demonstrated a verbal story that demystifies almost every injustice that man has done to man.
We have declared that any solution has to be in parallel and ongoing in a complimentary way.
We have shown where every person can begin to inform themselves and to participate.
We have empowered you to function in the context of the world."

Agreed. Once the quote ends the interpretation begins. One might say interpretation begins as soon as one starts to read any quote/story. So, any person reading these ideas will probably have a slight difference in the way those ideas translate/integrate into their life, or maybe these ideas are simply something a person reads and thinks that the ideas are already practiced in their life. Maybe a person does not like any of it.

Richard: "Things happen in the world that seemingly cannot be explained. The world is a mystery that can be continually explored. Do these exceptions disprove my thesis? Remember, I am not proving anything. I am demonstrating what works."

The irony of this is that what works is proof. :]]] But, proof can be deceiving if one attaches to a certain proof. This is why I feel like leaving proof as an open ended idea points to a freedom inherent in the human story, both individual and collective.

There may be many proofs for certain ideas, and one proof is not necessarily the only one that holds value in different individuals. This is what confounds atheists when talking with someone that believes in God. The kind of proof may be subjective or something as plain as looking around and seeing the immense beauty of existence. That is not enough to someone demanding proof of a different type.

In conclusion, I do feel like in the midst of this conversation we have grown (as a forum/community) in the ability to communicate with each other. Not many people contributed by adding content here, but many participated by simply reading along. This conversation (experiment) also takes away (offers to) some or all of the mystery of taking a long walk to get a short distance. Meaning, our conversations can eliminate the process, almost all-together, of figuring out where each person stands regarding certain ideas. Those that have read along with us can feel at ease, and maybe this experiment opens up a freedom to participate here at the forum that was once accompanied by an uneasy feeling.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
a cup of tea

If you and I were to get together for a cup of tea, I think that we would agree on a lot of things.  I would not necessarily post what we come up with as our declaration.  I totally agree that every moment is, and always will be a spiritual experience.  But I am going to leave that discovery for each person to make, riding on their own wheels.

My paragraph that you first refer to is purposed just to say that one exception doesn’t nullify what I am saying. Because I am not offering any “proof” that you need to argue against.  I am just inviting an experiment that is easy to perform, and which I found very satisfying.

Non-mystery to me just means identifying a trend that is repeatable enough to base daily actions on.  It is still a mystery.  Even though the mystery about life outweighs our knowledge a million to one, we are not even aware of the weight of it . . .  yet.  GOOD, or our thinking machinery would totally break down.

Your statement about “flipping” mystery with apparent knowledge is beautiful.  It translates to approaching life with innocent eyes.  To wonder is to be open to seeing deeply.  

The only thing that works 99% of the time are a few trends which we have identified and move by.  I am not speaking any truths.  I am only speaking of a mechanism, the link between conscious and unconscious self-talk and perceived ability, and increased emotional stability.  If you try out that link, your trail of discovery will be all of your own personal truths.  If you tell me how you worded them, I can tell you if they constrict you, or loosen your bindings.  But I have no comment on your personal conclusions. I think that any (half) earnest person will be able to verify this self-talk link, if they take even a sideways glance at it operating in their life.

My claim is that interpretation should be alive.  That means open to daily updates.  Don’t get stuck.

It is true that even though this form gets a few new members, very few post, or post only once and then quit. I should take responsibility for that, because of my usual hands off policy. I am a very poor moderator, and I let a few rough riders trample the timid.  I ought to change that, but no promises.

Life proves to be a long walk, that maybe covers only a short distance.  Sooner or later we also will realise, that it has been a very short walk indeed.

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Cheers

Richard: "a cup of tea
If you and I were to get together for a cup of tea, I think that we would agree on a lot of things. I would not necessarily post what we come up with as our declaration."

You just let me know, I would probably be drinking coffee while you drink tea. But, I do like tea. A fun/good conversation would be the reasoning, nothing more. :]

Richard: "Non-mystery to me just means identifying a trend that is repeatable enough to base daily actions on. It is still a mystery. Even though the mystery about life outweighs our knowledge a million to one, we are not even aware of the weight of it . . . yet. GOOD, or our thinking machinery would totally break down."

Understood, kinda figured that from your last comments, but this does add clarity.

Richard: "My claim is that interpretation should be alive. That means open to daily updates. Don’t get stuck."

It is these restatements that seem to bring clarity to your (our) previous comments. Simplicity is the hallmark of a successful dialogue/dialectic progression. That is, we are able to cut out things that may lead to confusion until the ideas are slim, trim and flexible (as well).

Richard: "Life proves to be a long walk, that maybe covers only a short distance. Sooner or later we also will realise, that it has been a very short walk indeed."

Indeed!

I wanted to add something here I feel like should have popped up earlier.

spon·ta·ne·i·ty
ˌspän(t)əˈnēədē,ˌspän(t)əˈnāədē/
noun
the condition of being spontaneous; spontaneous behavior or action.
"she occasionally tore up her usual schedule in favor of spontaneity"

A life that is lived via spontaneity is a life that does not get stuck, can't become frozen in ideas, and transcends causality for freedom. This kind of life is a reflection of the Realized.

So looking back, I do feel like if we add Realization to our conversation it has to be connected to being spontaneous. The type of (nondual) paradigm we have discussed and/or clarified offers a look into the kind of spontaneous actions a Realizer may take daily in life, while taking some of the mystery out it.

It seems to me that the philosophy we expounded here is an example of putting that kind of life into words and description, while leaving room for freedom and spontaneity.

Anything else we should get out? By mentioning 'Realizer/Realization', I was working to keep the idea of Realization or the Realizer from creating confusion, but instead was at the core of the dialectic (conversation) the whole time.

Richard: "What about a metric?
There must be a measure to what we are saying, and a measure after we put what we are saying into practice. I suggest that metric could be our anxiety level. Are we getting more worried, resigned or more fearful, or are we getting less immersed in bad feelings.

Today our feelings might be all over the map, and seem like a metric that doesn’t point in any direction. But I am suggesting that after systematically applying what we find, we will become more free to cross the borders of these three contexts at will, and we will feel good about, and grow from our participation, wherever we choose to engage."

Basically I'm thinking out loud here>

I am still not convinced the anxiety should be the metric. If we add spontaneity to this, I feel like anxiety is trumped (no pun intended) for the freedom to go with our gut/heart anyways. Anxiety seems to be connected to fear of not knowing, being unable to predict the outcome. Being spontaneous allows us to transcend anxiety and express/experience freedom even if it means something went 'wrong'.

The philosophy we explored in these two threads helps remove the anxiety if a person is not living a spontenous life. Boom, that sounds like a successful ending to this conversation. Basically that is the 'goal' of bringing this discussion into the light here at the forum, if I understand your original intentions.

Maybe we just leave that metric up to each person, and suggest that one base their choices on freedom. Hum, maybe freedom could be the metric...??? Hahahahahaha, what ever feels right. Maybe anxiety and freedom could play two sides to a single life experience/choice. Maybe they are paradoxical, maybe it is going backwards by turning the metric into a this or that. Maybe I'm adding confusion. Sorry if I am. XD

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Maybe I'm not used to this much agreement?

So it is new for me to see that in spite of this, the discussion still begs lots of clarification from my side.

One glaring flaw I find with certain (our favourite) philosophies, is that they all play an end-game.  They tell us, “this is how it looks”, (when you get there).  That one statement destroys the whole thing as far as I am concerned.  Now instead of a road to discovery, I am in the struggle to emulate my master.  These bastards are telling us that “you can be like me, if you keep doing what I tell you to do.”

§ It’s true, you can’t get stuck if you lead a spontaneous life.  But everything we do in this day and age is built upon not allowing one idle moment to interrupt our (very productive) work schedule.  The only chance to be spontaneous is to be unemployed or retired, and by then you are so ingrained in your routine, you can forget it.  Other than that, you can’t be spontaneous until you take most of the anxiety out of your day.  Otherwise any free time to consider spontaneity is consumed by rerunning the worry loop.  Spontaneity is picked up along the  way, and never can be the starting point.

§ The whole concept of realiser also has to go into the trash bin.  Realiser becomes a bench mark ensuring that you will never be “good enough”, and always be dependent.  Those that claim realisation, have trashed the concept for themselves.  If they still espouse it to the others, it's to have something to sell.  Or maybe they just don’t know any better.

§ Of course my metric, anxiety, is actually the lack of anxiety, (as it gradually dissolves). You hit it right saying that anxiety seems to be connected to the fear of not knowing.  But the lack of anxiety can actually go way beyond the presumption of knowing.  One thing you can begin to  “know” is that anxiety in any form is absolutely useless.  Then with or without presumed knowing, anxiety no longer arises.

§ Can freedom be the metric?  How would you quantify it?  Freedom is a subjective feeling, isn’t it?  A feeling is a bodily contraction level isn’t it?  If that contraction is less than it was yesterday, we call it relative freedom.  Voila, enter the diminishing scale of anxiety.

I could write a book on context-one about mastery of the (ordinary) individual through examining self-talk.  Unfortunately, much of that mastery is not available to the non-dual thinker, because their scheme of justification of life has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

I could write a ton about ability to move in the context of the world.  Here I gave a couple of examples, the movie that talks about diminishing violence, and my description of the world money system.  I also introduced something logical, that changing the world has to start small and work in parallel with the distorted systems needing correction.  I said world systems need more diversity, not more uniformity.  That is a wide open door for your participation.

I sincerely doubt if this thread has taken even the tiniest chip out of our reader’s favourite non-duality thinking.  It is just too - too convenient to hide all of world pain in their basket called illusion.  It is their perfect insolation from empathy and sadness, and perfect objectification of the other.  It also puts you into a glass house, with so much effort put into protecting your fairyland beliefs.

Even with two of us, these threads get very long.  I doubt if the casual reader will come down this far, so context three starts in a new thread.  (I still can post in one and two.)

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
baby tossing

Richard: "§ The whole concept of realiser also has to go into the trash bin. Realiser becomes a bench mark ensuring that you will never be “good enough”, and always be dependent. Those that claim realisation, have trashed the concept for themselves. If they still espouse it to the others, it's to have something to sell. Or maybe they just don’t know any better."

I'm not so concerned with the idea of realizer or concerned about all the baggage it carries socially (thus, leading me to avoid the term all-together). But, we are not bound to that term, right. What happens if we substitute realizer with happy. I think that paragraph would change in feeling and value. Would you have even wrote it?

Being happy could be termed to say one is not stuck, and/or not struggling against limitations (anxiety). Being happy with whatever circumstances, and not being stuck in causality with limitations. In other words, being happy means one is also spontaneous because that one is not seeking happiness from current circumstances/experiences.

If a person claims to be realized I don't immediately deny and place that person in the looney bin. I am 1st and foremost happy that another person is happy and taking part in our global dialogue of turning people from a life of (unnecessary) unhappiness to happiness. It means to me that a person is doing exactly what we are challenging people here to do, and that is get involved and take part in our human story. How many of those people are actually realized and not out taking advantage of those who come to them? Who knows. It is a bit of a risky adventure to have a Guru, whether it is oneself or another. So, I'm not trying to hold onto those ideas or terms, but I'm also not so quick to toss them out. Let's all Wake Up, together! XD Just wanted to share that.

Richard: "§ Of course my metric, anxiety, is actually the lack of anxiety, (as it gradually dissolves). You hit it right saying that anxiety seems to be connected to the fear of not knowing. But the lack of anxiety can actually go way beyond the presumption of knowing. One thing you can begin to “know” is that anxiety in any form is absolutely useless. Then with or without presumed knowing, anxiety no longer arises.

§ Can freedom be the metric? How would you quantify it? Freedom is a subjective feeling, isn’t it? A feeling is a bodily contraction level isn’t it? If that contraction is less than it was yesterday, we call it relative freedom. Voila, enter the diminishing scale of anxiety."

I like how you clarified what you mean by anxiety. Makes more sense to me. Then it seems that freedom can be juxtaposed (placed side by side) with anxiety. So, as a person experiences less anxiety that person simultaneously experiences more freedom. ...guess I understood what you mean.

Richard: "... that mastery is not available to the non-dual thinker, because their scheme of justification of life has thrown out the baby with the bathwater."

This then suggests (imo) the non-dual thinker should 'take part in the suffering while not suffering'. Who better to enter such an adventure that cleary involves a society of mass madness?

I'm ready for the next thread when you are.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
You make some dynamite statements

I feel like we are on the same page, not only 100 per-cent, but 1000 per-mil.

Substituting Happiness for Realiser works, but with one caution that I will explain below.  AND

If I was to be a preacher, I would preach only one message. Your sentence that “being happy means one is also being spontaneous because that one is not seeking happiness from current circumstances/experiences.”  When you realise that you are always already and permanently happy, you can approach every circumstances/experience already full, and not seeking to wring blood out of stones.  This change in perspective is 180 degrees, and you’ll never be the same.

With Happiness:  I often say that everything you do is motivated by a feeling, usually uncomfortable, because with a good feeling, what is the point of breaking inertia?  Then you stay put.

So everyone that views self as illusion is adopting that view, in order to be happy, (not to have that uncomfortable feeling).

The difference is that when you amputate self, you amputate the other, and you amputate the world. Now you are incapable of all (but the most superficial of) relationships.  Man is a social animal (they are even speaking of oneness), but you become a desert, hung out to dry. Of course you are untouched by feelings.  You are now a navel gazing zombie.  So it works, the feelings do go away.  What is left is somewhat pleasant, a relief in any case.

So my caution is about arriving at “happiness” through amputation, or arriving at happiness through inclusion.

If someone claims realisation, it is no problem for me.  If they are teaching others to turn from unnecessary unhappiness to happiness by challenging people to get involved and take part in our human story. I am all for it.

If they are teaching others to find happiness through numbness and amputation, I have to call them down on it.

n/a
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 days 1 hour ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
The best handle to grasp life is through your WORDS

You can try to manipulate feelings directly through meditation and transmission (being in the presence of an untroubled community).  But the risk is that your self-talk is untouched, and when you leave your meditation cushion or guru, that same self-talk reconstructs your old feeling matrix.

For me, working with your words is a sure and lasting route to the same freedoms.  (The tool of words is the baby, the bad feelings are the bathwater.)

Those that have amputated speech as an illusion cannot work with their words. They have learned to ignore them and despise them.  Too bad, the words still work their mischief with or without your belief in them.

More on that later. 

n/a

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.