killfile
Raan
There is no arguing with you at all.
None of any of your arguments have been without fallacies.
This may have been unintentional or it may have been deliberate.
So you are either stupid, or you are an asshole, or you are both.
In any case for me to keep arguing with you makes me a fool.
Still it was better to have been a fool than a stupid asshole.
This discussion is over and done.
You win.
--
></>
,
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
news:raorc.83941$325.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
When you are perfect you can then expect it from others. Everything you said
here about Robert can also be said about you.
Robert Epstein
Raan wrote:
Raan,
I don't know if you will read this or not before creating your killfile,
but I definitely haven't won anything. If there is peace, and we won't
have to continue arguing about nonsense, that is a positive development,
but mostly it's been a sad and regrettable waste of time, and an
exercise in mutual anger and frustration, with much negativity left in
its wake. Nothing worth winning for either of us.
I have said before and will say it again, looking at the situation
objectively, our combat of wills here is a study in the ego and how
badly the samsaric mind wants to win and bolster or salvage its own
reputation. I do not feel good about my participation in that, although
the alternative of saying nothing and letting my reputation be
constantly disparaged seemed even worse to me, and I do not feel good
about your participation in it. I think it shows a lack of development
on both sides.
You will of course think that this has been an exercise in fighting for
right and truth on your side, and an exercise in sophistry and deception
on my side. That is your interpretation, and it says whatever it does
about your frame of mind.
Robert
Pat Harrington
Funny, I thought we were all perfect, just deluded into thinking
otherwise. If spacetime is a continuum, we do not have freewill and
freewill becomes the will of that which is. So we move from one
moment to our next, thinking we have choices, but the future already
exists in spacetime just as much as the past does; it's just that we
haven't seen the future yet so we delude ourselves into thinking that
we make choices. When what we really are is like characters in a film
that's already playing we just move accordingg to how we've been
scripted by the ongoing reactions of energy. Therefore, any mistakes
we think we make were inevitable. We will do that which we will do
because energy reacts the way it does. No REAL mistakes are possible;
only mistaken perceptions. We are all perfect.
That Guy
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
> "," <rodr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2h6jloF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > news:raorc.83941$325.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Robert.
> > > There is no arguing with you at all.
> > > None of any of your arguments have been without fallacies.
> > > This may have been unintentional or it may have been deliberate.
> > > So you are either stupid, or you are an asshole, or you are both.
> > > In any case for me to keep arguing with you makes me a fool.
> > > Still it was better to have been a fool than a stupid asshole.
> > > This discussion is over and done.
> > > You win.
> > > --
> > > ></>
> >
> > When you are perfect you can then expect it from others. Everything you
said
> > here about Robert can also be said about you.
>
> Funny, I thought we were all perfect, just deluded into thinking
> otherwise. If spacetime is a continuum,
"If" space-time is a continuum? How can an illusion be a continuum?
Stavros of Pureshitland
The only way to handle assholes who cross post to four different news
groups is to killfile them.
Good bye Raan
zero
well raan at least you finally see that you are a total f'n idiot.
this is progress. a small baby step but progress. :-)
Raan
"zero" <Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91e0999b.04052...@posting.google.com...
No doubt that you're a complete moron and an utter asshole.
--
></>
Raan
> news:raorc.83941$325.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Robert.
> > There is no arguing with you at all.
> > None of any of your arguments have been without fallacies.
> > This may have been unintentional or it may have been deliberate.
> > So you are either stupid, or you are an asshole, or you are both.
> > In any case for me to keep arguing with you makes me a fool.
> > Still it was better to have been a fool than a stupid asshole.
> > This discussion is over and done.
> > You win.
> > --
>
said
> here about Robert can also be said about you.
Only if you're a stupid asshole.
--
></>
Raan
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
Right. He has no choice about being stupid and he is a perfect asshole.
--
></>
zero
yes.. that is probably a truth that will hold up to most's opinions.
..see now was that difficult? we finally agree. :-)but keep in mind we
are dealing with opinions and well we both know how to direct and
minipulate others into calling us assholes..something about smelly
trolls under the bridge...they are sweet and cuddlely :-)
,
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
Wow that's deep. I'm completely floored. It does however quite succinctly
prove what I just said.
,
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
You're assuming that perfection is reflective of a spontaneous and a-causal
existence whereupon everything is its own cause owing to the idea that there
is no stopping point in the regression of causality and if this is the case
then there are no causes thus no effects, thus nothing actually in existence
to start with and no word like nihilism to describe what doesn't exist. You
also state that there are no mistakes thus there is perfection yet you say
then that there are mistaken perceptions. Are the mistaken perceptions
perfect too ? If this is the case than perfection itself could be seen to be
a mistaken perception. The universe can be said to appear but not to
actually exist. In appearance only, perfection or imperfection tend to pale
as a descriptive significance.
Pat Harrington
Rainbows and mirages are illusions but they have perfectly
rational and physical explanations. If the illusion lasts for all
time, it's a continuum.
Pat Harrington
Your assumption of my assumption is incorrect. All of spacetime
exists as one object with no points missing, as seen from the outside.
But we are on the inside moving through it, so we see events unfold
over time. What exists is energy. I believe that the geometry of
spacetime accounts for the appearance of a Big Bang starting point
from which events will unfold and energy reacts from the one original
action of the bang. Obviously, perfection itself is a perception.
What I was getting at was that there is no actual freedom to our will
and therefore there can be no real mistakes. Everything that happens
is a natural part of the spacetime picture. In this sense, the
mistaken perceptions are equally "expected" by spacetime and necessary
to the continuum. Your last statement above is spot on!
,
Of course there is no free will. You are not living, you are being lived.
This is why the first step towards enlightenment is to develop the witness
or watcher consciousness whereupon you come to realize that it is not *you*
that is acting but the reactionary genetic embodiment in reflection of its
reality only. When you can sit back and just watch it act being completely
unmoved by anything it does, your true nature will begin to be recognized by
itself at last.
Raan
"Stavros of Pureshitland" <bac_...@removethissbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:v0urc.52050$u02....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> The only way to handle assholes who cross post to four different news
> groups is to killfile them.
>
> Good bye Raan
You just cross posted to four different newsgroups you idiot.
--
></>
Stavros of Pureshitland
"Khee Mao" <yousuckbigba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8luqb$l3e$1...@nntp1.u.washington.edu...
>
> "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
how would you like it up the ass honey
>
>
I am merely telling the people of all the groups tormented by this cross
posting that there is an answer - killfile
you can killfille me. I usually only post to alt.buddha.short.fat.guy and I
killfile the guys, like cupcake and Tang who take my messages and cross post
them.
,
Far be it for anyone in these groups to step on the toes of your
expectations that the universe owes you a comfortable and conflict free
existence.
David
Pat Harrington
I completely agree with you. But, as you point out, there are
three steps at least: making the realisation and then acquiring the
watchfulness and then being unmoved. These acquisitions are
increasingly more difficult to acquire. But, once one "has" the last,
do you find yourself becoming attached to being unattached?
Stavros of Pureshitland
far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we don't want
your shit cross posted. you think that you thoughts are so grand that
everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light
zero
that must be some really good weed yer smoking..
zero
well i fer one am certainly impressed.. assholes of that quality are
rarely ever seen in public..
Ch'an Fu
> That sounds an awful lot like Samkhyan dualism to me.
applesauce, perhaps...
please drop an email from an actual email acct. to
cha...@metta.lk it would be nice to make your acquaintence
now that introductions have been made.
be
well,
cf
Ned Ludd
>>> expectations that the universe owes you a comfortable and conflict
>>> free existence.
>>
>> far be it for anyone in some group to respect another group we don't
>> want your shit cross posted. you think that you thoughts are so grand
>> that everyone must hear you. My asshole has seen more light
>
> well i fer one am certainly impressed.. assholes of that quality are
> rarely ever seen in public..
>
Oh, don't tempt him, man.
Ned
Robert Epstein
Pat Harrington wrote:
However, "," is referencing a point prior to space-time, in which such
creation is seen to be nothing but a false idea. from that perspective,
there is no necessity to the continuum, and it may either rise or fall
as it likes, but it is still meaningless.
robert
robert
,
Stavros sweetie, I know it has been difficult for you to live with your
erroneous idea that you were denied love as a child and now that you have
carried that trauma into adulthood (sic) it is cohesively embarrasing to
those around you who witness the obvious cries for attention that you are
wasting your life pursuing. But hang in there old chap, death is just around
the corner.
,
When you *detach*, there is no attaching or detaching per se, because you
learn to abide as that which is prior to concepts and descriptions of it are
quite impossible to explain. Detaching really means that you let go of all
that isn't *you*, the body, the mind and eventually the consciousness
itself. If you develop the witness attitude with regularity, the other steps
will come naturally over time. Exemplify that sense of conscious presence.
It will develop over time and there will soon no longer be a *working* at
it, so to speak.
,
,
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mailvault.com> wrote in message
news:b29ab5b6d0abfde8...@news.teranews.com...
> David wrote:
>
> > That sounds an awful lot like Samkhyan dualism to me.
>
> applesauce, perhaps...
>
Yer a card, Fooey.
,
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40B01C91...@verizon.net...
First off, if we are prior to space time there are no concepts or reflective
consciousness to muse about such things, and secondly even *during* the
continuum it is entirely meaningless as it is prior to its *existence*. This
is the state *seen* when there is abidance to a *prior to concepts*
position, as such. You have to just BE it. It's not even an experience as
such because there is no entity to experience it at that point. What is
believed to be a *real* universe is based on two slippery measurement
concepts, space and time. These are only geographical volume and durational
ideas and have no actual substance. Based on these ideas, all other ideas
arise. The prior to space time state is *always* there. It is this temporary
play of ideas called a universe that everyone takes way too seriously, that
is short-lived, transient and bound by time. Set aside these concepts even
for a short *time* and see what remains.
Raan
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gDUrc.28049$KE6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
He'll just fit right into the whole flock of assholes already gathered.
--
></>
Raan
David I don't know about but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
What either of you think of me you will surely reflect.
--
></>
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@mailvault.com> wrote in message
news:b29ab5b6d0abfde8...@news.teranews.com...
Raan
Here is a bit of unsolicited advice from a voluntary outsider. Don't put
too much credence into what these guys think they can tell you. It's a fool
who discounts the will in favour of awareness or vice versa. They certainly
are attached to the state of detachment and fail to recognize cognition as a
legitimate activity such as carrying water and chopping wood. Nor do they
appreciate the koan-like nature of physics and philosophy. Your ideas about
time may well lead you to a clearer understanding of your own, than to take
advice from those who never had an original thought in their entire lives.
The creative mind acts it does not just observe. And it is free from the
bias of education by closed minds. Keep up the good work and don't let
anyone distract your quest for understanding. Time is a favorite subject of
mine by the way and I'd be happy to discuss my findings further.
--
></>
Raan
>
>
> Raan wrote:
>
> > Robert.
> > There is no arguing with you at all.
> > None of any of your arguments have been without fallacies.
> > This may have been unintentional or it may have been deliberate.
> > So you are either stupid, or you are an asshole, or you are both.
> > In any case for me to keep arguing with you makes me a fool.
> > Still it was better to have been a fool than a stupid asshole.
> > This discussion is over and done.
> > You win.
> >
>
> I don't know if you will read this or not before creating your killfile,
> but I definitely haven't won anything. If there is peace, and we won't
> have to continue arguing about nonsense, that is a positive development,
> but mostly it's been a sad and regrettable waste of time, and an
> exercise in mutual anger and frustration, with much negativity left in
> its wake. Nothing worth winning for either of us.
>
> I have said before and will say it again, looking at the situation
> objectively, our combat of wills here is a study in the ego and how
> badly the samsaric mind wants to win and bolster or salvage its own
> reputation. I do not feel good about my participation in that, although
> the alternative of saying nothing and letting my reputation be
> constantly disparaged seemed even worse to me, and I do not feel good
> about your participation in it. I think it shows a lack of development
> on both sides.
>
> You will of course think that this has been an exercise in fighting for
> right and truth on your side, and an exercise in sophistry and deception
> on my side. That is your interpretation, and it says whatever it does
> about your frame of mind.
>
> Robert
Holy fucking shit!
What an unbelievable asshole you really are!
Better you killfile me you bullshit.
--
></>
Robert Epstein
, wrote:
okay.
robert
,
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
Not outside enough , obviously.
Don't put
> too much credence into what these guys think they can tell you.
Especially from this *Also-Raan* character.
It's a fool
> who discounts the will in favour of awareness or vice versa.
How much will or awareness do you posess ? Can you hold your breath for a
month ? Can you view the other side of the Universe ? Seems we are ALL quite
limited , doesn't it ? The real fool is the one who tries to convince others
that his limitedness is more legitimate than theirs.
They certainly
> are attached to the state of detachment and fail to recognize cognition as
a
> legitimate activity such as carrying water and chopping wood. Nor do they
> appreciate the koan-like nature of physics and philosophy.
You seem to be able to make many assumptions and presumptions based on a
very limited scope of evidence. I would tend to think that you are over
estimating the quality and worth of your hasty conclusions.
Your ideas about
> time may well lead you to a clearer understanding of your own, than to
take
> advice from those who never had an original thought in their entire lives.
So you are able to discern the entirety of other's lives and immediately
judge them to be creatively challenged ? Awareness such as that should be
bottled and sold.
> The creative mind acts it does not just observe. And it is free from the
> bias of education by closed minds. Keep up the good work and don't let
> anyone distract your quest for understanding. Time is a favorite subject
of
> mine by the way and I'd be happy to discuss my findings further.
> --
No thanks, I've had enough sleep today already.
Fô
wrote:
Ahhh, yesss...Puts me in mind of the old koan that goes " make hay
while the sun shines where the sun don't shine"....
"Mors certa, vita incerta"
Grey Adept
Sounds more like Detached Personality Disorder Syndrome than enlightenment.
Are you seriously suggesting we should be passive spectators of our own
lives rather than active participants?
Grey Adept
No - the real fool is one who believes this is a cogent argument.
Grey Adept
"Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
Hang on - didn't you say you were going to Killfile Robert?
But we all knew you couldn't.
,
"Grey Adept" <g...@anuntrueemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:c8r2qc$4o3$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Are you attempting to assume that something may prevent you from doing both
? And do you have an addiction to the juice you may get from the fear that
one of these states over the other may be less efficacious in reaching an
ultimate state? The gravity of the focus of awareness tends to coagulate at
particular focal points such as the most popular which is an accumulation
point somewhere behind the eyes seeing phenomena in all directions and
conceptually reasoning and evaluating an objectivization into an assumed
duality as a conquerable situation owing to reptilian and mammalian brain
habitational avenues of expression to ensure survival. A shift of attention
into more subtle, implicit spheres of focus need not be all inclusive or
permanent. Consciousness can do as it wishes to do unto an infinity of
possibilities.
,
We're ALL fools, but the funnier ones are those who claim and claim and
claim that they are not.
Grey Adept
What on earth is this gibberish about?
,
All that you are overlooking in your voluntary limiting of the consciousness
from your embodiment to include only the gross phenomena which assault your
senses continually. Find out who is there in deep sleep when the ideas of
body, mind and even consciousness are temporarily set aside.
Grey Adept
Yeah, yeah, I'll work on it right away..
But tell me this - since you deny free why do you have to bother?
David Kotschessa
Obviously he doesn't.
A Fool
>
> We're ALL fools, but the funnier ones are those who claim and claim and
> claim that they are not.
What about those who claim and claim that they are?
Robert Epstein
Grey Adept wrote:
You should understand that this is not a call to inaction but a form of
meditation. Witness consciousness as a practice is at least 8 - 10,000
years old in India, so they have had some time to work on it, and yes,
it really is proposed that you "witness" your own actions and responses
as though they were the actions/responses of someone else, because from
the standpoint of the purely conscious aspect of the mind, they are.
One of the most important points in most Eastern philosophies is that
what you consider to be "you" is not really the "doer," you just think
you are. The "you" who thinks you are is your overriding consciousness
which is not personal but impersonal. Of course, enlightenment is not
going to be the norm, and when you reach this consciousness with some
predictable skill, then you would indeed no longer have the kinds of
attachment to personal and worldly things that a person normally has.
Yes, it is dangerously similar to a form of detachment that would be a
psychological disorder in ordinary terms, and that is why it is not
something to be forced or entered into lightly without proper
instruction or at least a sense of what you are doing.
From the ordinary standpoint it is not a very healthy psychological
state. However, there are even psychological disciplines in the west
that have adopted this kind of witnessing or detached observation with
very positive results for certain kinds of patients. Witness
consciousness tends to reduce anxiety and to increase attention to what
is happening in the moment, and so for "nervous" patients - those with
anxiety disorders and related sorts of hyper-reactivity, this is a very
useful way of calming and focussing. So it really depends on how it is
being used and for what purpose.
Robert
Robert Epstein
A Fool wrote:
really funny.
robert
Grey Adept
Ta, Robert.
However, are you (or comma) actually suggesting that we should try mental
techniques that pose severe dangers to our mental health, and could very
well lead to permanent mental problems and indeed a permanent state of
psychosis?
Excuse me if I resist the temptation to try it.
Raan
>
> But we all knew you couldn't.
No I didn't say that anywhere but I understand why you thought so.
Please pardon my rudeness toward you btw. It was misdirected.
--
></>
Pat Harrington
It seems to me that there is a cyclical problem with the
"witness" though. If there is no "you", who is being witnessed? Am I
the witness? What if I choose to watch what the witness does, Am I my
witness' witness? And If I watch that which watches the witness, who
am I? It seems to me that the only decent explanation out of this is
that the witness is the observer and the observed. All there is is
witness.
This is bourne out in my more scientific hypothesis that there is
a reference dimension that links all quanta of energy to one
coordinate in that dimension. This would imply that all of energy is
actually one object where the link that ties all quanta together is in
a compactified dimension that cannot be observed in our apparent 4D
spacetime. I would also hypothesise that consciousness and physical
energy share a relationship similar to electricity and magnetism in
that they are both different aspects of the same general phenomenon
and that not all forms of physical energy demonstrably exhibit
consciousness/awareness yet some forms do. Those that do exhibit
consciousness/awareness we consider to be living. Some forms exhibit
more complex conscious behaviour than others and humans "seem" to
exhibit the most complex conscious behaviours of all species of living
beings on this planet.
So this consciousness of the one object that energy comprises is
shared by all living beings. We call our share "I" or "me" or myself"
depending on the nature of the reference. Yet there is only one.
This is how Atman IS Brahman in Hinduism and how "the Lord our God,
the Lord is one" in Judaism. It is differentiated conscious energy
reacting to itself.
Cheers,
Pat
Pat Harrington
I know you and rodriquez don't really get on well so I think I'l
steer a middle course and try not to offend nor side with either. In
my response to rodriquez' post I gave a bit more outline of my
theories. I'd be happy to hear yours. One of the things I enjoy
doing is trying to put various theories/hypotheses together into a
system that allows for them all to be valid ways of looking at one
reality. Obviously not everything can fit but most can even if they
are valid illusions. Like you can't have one God AND many Gods but
you can have one that appears to be many. People CAN see rainbows and
mirages but you can't touch them. Illusions share in the reality and
some serve useful purposes. If self is illusory in one sense yet
hiding a more REAL self behind it, preservation of the former will
also preserve the latter. Energy ITSELF is very clever in that way.
There is a certain koan-like nature to reality. Otherwise koans
themselves would not be enlightening. This comes, of course, from a
man who CAN clap with one hand!! It just takes a whiplike motion
keeping the wrist stiff and letting the fingers relax and flop against
the palm while moving back and forth at the elbow.
After reading my response to rodriquez, you will understand that
my understanding of will is that there is only one true will in the
universe. We all have no choice but to follow it. So, rodriquez is
correct in the sense that your will being separate must be given up
but you are correct in that it is the one will that does everthing
that is important in that it is what makes you do that which you do
and makes me do that which I do. But the illusion is that our wills
are different when, really, they are different expressions of the one
will that is the only will.
I hope I have steered a middle path between you and I also hope
that maybe you can both see where both sets of ideas have their share
in truth. Well, at least I can see a system that allows for both. ;-)
Cheers,
Pat
Pat Harrington
Seeing the other side of the universe is easy!! Just turn and
face the opposite direction. Perspective is a wonderful thing.
>
> They certainly
> > are attached to the state of detachment and fail to recognize cognition as
> a
> > legitimate activity such as carrying water and chopping wood. Nor do they
> > appreciate the koan-like nature of physics and philosophy.
>
> You seem to be able to make many assumptions and presumptions based on a
> very limited scope of evidence. I would tend to think that you are over
> estimating the quality and worth of your hasty conclusions.
>
> Your ideas about
> > time may well lead you to a clearer understanding of your own, than to
> take
> > advice from those who never had an original thought in their entire lives.
>
> So you are able to discern the entirety of other's lives and immediately
> judge them to be creatively challenged ? Awareness such as that should be
> bottled and sold.
>
If I'm correct in my observations, then there are no other's
lives, just different expressions of one life.
Pat Harrington
I have no idea why it occurred, but when I read your statement
above, the first thing that entered my head was the Monty Python line
"Never be rude to a nigger..." Perhaps it seemed the epitome of
foolishness in my mind. It gave me a good laugh anyway!!
Pat Harrington
> creation is seen to be nothing but a false idea. from that perspective,
> there is no necessity to the continuum, and it may either rise or fall
> as it likes, but it is still meaningless.
>
> robert
>
>
I have a conceptual problem with "prior to space-time", as it
implies that there is a relative something (your point, which is
spatial even if it is only conceptual) before time. How can you be
before a time when, if there is no time, there can be no relation like
"before". What that implies is a space-time continuum where
physicality blinks in and out of existence. I have no problem with
that, but the continuum goes on. It couldn't be a continuum
otherwise. This would be easily afforded by the geometry of
space-time. If all energy can move to a place where it is all
potential, it will appear to disappear and the only movement from
there is, once again, to realise that full potential. This is what
the Hindus describe as "every time Shiva opens his eye, he beholds a
new Brahma".
Grey Adept
Wow!
You are in a continuum of your own.
zero
i thinks ya gets a lot of pot smokers in this group that think what
they post is of a sensable manner until they read it the next day..
:-)
Grey Adept
No problemo man, that's cewl.
Hey, where's the chocolate, dude?
Robert Epstein
Grey Adept wrote:
I don't think there's any danger of inducing psychosis, permanent or
temporary, by working with witness consciousness. One hears of
meditative techniques that do lead to psychotic breaks, and I have never
heard of a psychologically healthy person, or anyone for that matter,
using Buddhist or Jnana Yoga techniques of detached awareness, having a
psychotic break. More likely than not, these techniques lead to greater
peace and understanding, with heightened awareness and concentration.
One is "detached" in the sense that one is not as reactive to things
that happen that would normally be upsetting, and in the sense that the
sense of self becomes lighter and eventually reaches a state of greatly
lessened or eradicated clinging. This technique goes in the direction
of ending suffering, not creating new or worse suffering, so I think you
are unduly concerned.
If someone were to force emotional detachment or suppress their
naturally occurring feelings in a forceful way, based on a false
understanding of witness consciousness, really using it as an excuse to
try to get rid of nasty thoughts and feelings that they want to escape,
I can imagine it having psychologically harmful consequences. But for
an ordinary practitioner it does not strike me as being a dangerous
technique to practice, and is one that can be naturally increased over
time through observation and understanding.
Psychotic breaks have been reported with some regularity amidst
practitioners of TM [transcendental meditation] in the past, and
practitioners of Kundalini Yoga. Although even these are generally
beneficent practices, a certain percentage of practitioners do crack up.
So if you want to avoid something, you can avoid these disciplines.
Kundalini Yoga works with a rapid-fire breath called "fire breath" which
has a marked effect on the nervous system, and that seems to me to be
the most dangerous of the techniques that are out there, of those I know of.
As for detachement in general and the understanding of the ego as being
a false construct of the mind, these principles have been practiced in
one form or another by millions of Buddhists over thousands of years,
and so far I have not heard a single report of a psychotic break or
other serious problem. You may not like the philosophy or the
lifestyle, which is fine, but it is not dangerous to those practicing it.
Robert
Best,
Robert
Robert Epstein
Pat Harrington wrote:
> It seems to me that there is a cyclical problem with the
> "witness" though. If there is no "you", who is being witnessed? Am I
> the witness? What if I choose to watch what the witness does, Am I my
> witness' witness? And If I watch that which watches the witness, who
> am I? It seems to me that the only decent explanation out of this is
> that the witness is the observer and the observed. All there is is
> witness.
Dear Pat,
I may not have taken fully into account the latter part of your
argument, but let me take your statement above in its own right. I
think you can practice witness consciousness without any infinite
regress being created. This is because witness consciousness is a
position rather than a person. In other words, one is watching from a
certain standpoint. It is not that "there is a witness," it is that
consciousness is taking the position of witnessing, stepping back from
the action and seeing it as taking place without a person's volition,
rather than seeing it as "mine." Witness consciousness should remove
the sense of a person watching, rather than adding another person behind
the original one.
If you ask, "Well then who is watching?" the answer would be "no one."
There is watching, but there is no one doing it. This kind of
formulation is a logical problem for the mind, but only because the mind
functions under the presupposition that there can be no action without
an actor. We take it for granted that if a meteor gets thrown off of an
exploding body in space and is hurled across space, that the meteor does
not have any will or volition. We do not say there is no movement in
space unless the meteor wills it or somehow causes it. Likewise, we can
look at human action and reaction as taking place as part of system of
causes and effects, rather than being willed by "someone." When
consciousness identifies itself as the actor, it creates the illusion of
a person. When it becomes the witness, it removes this illusion, and
observes that things happen spontaneously, because of conditions or
causes that do not emanate from a "person."
Robert
zero
OR YOU COULD ADMIT YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW AND WELL NOT KNOWING IS OK. :-)
Robert Epstein
Pat Harrington wrote:
I think it has to do with what consciousness identifies. The continuum
may go on in the sense that a dream goes on, but one can be either
asleep or awake. Does waking up "stop" the continuum of the dream, or
does one see that dream was dream and re-identify what awake means when
awake? From the standpoint of the continuum not being the whole of
existence, the question of whether it is prior or not doesn't really
matter. What mattes is that the continuum is not all-consuming but is
the realm of separate objects and subjects interacting in a relative
reality. The question is whether that is all occurring to a reality of
consciousness that is not in itself separated and whether the subjects
and objects that arise for it are the ultimate reality or just a
relative one. These things are hard to talk about it language, but it
is worth taking a look at.
Robert
,
It is only the psychological illusion called persona that fears letting go
of identification with the body and the mind anyway. It is only the false
core, false self that any *harm* can come to at all. Only your memory bundle
which has served you as a proxy identity could ever suffer any mental
psychosis or such. And what would mental psychosis be anyway ? Something
outside of the tribal consensus which is considered normal for the
functioning process of the mental culture of the genetic dispositions of any
human embodiment owing to the reactionary agenda and itinerary of its
survial strategies at this given point in this particular creation. Only
your mental culture can fear anything. And your mental culture is just a
false temporary entertainment factor for your true nature which is beyond
fear and beyond harm. Your physical nature is made up of the basic elements.
Consciousness is a latency of these elements turned potency once the
combinations of these elements coagulate into a reflective and aware motif.
Your physicality is actually mainly space with a small amount of particulate
matter in the form of electromagnetic photon particles spinning rapidly like
countless tiny solar systems made up mostly of space. If you wish to
identify with the physical nature of what you are as you seem to be doing,
why not identify with the majority of your physicality which is only space,
as it were ? Does the space in your basement care what the space in your
attic is doing ? It is only your identification with the phenomenal
physicality that leads you to question existence at all. Beneath this
physical phenomenality is the plenum noumenon, the infinite potential that
is so intense in its possibilities that a natural spontaneous effulgence
takes place and phenomena are able to be aware of themselves temporarily.
,
Undifferentiated whole awareness has split itself into a duality of
reflective experience addiction objectivizations in order to get to know
itself and in order to enjoy itself. In most cases at this point in the
evolution of spiritual consciousness, it does not recognize itself beyond
the seemingly multiplicitous nature of itself, but if it did in totality,
this grand masquerade with its many disguises just might come to a
screeching halt. You questioned the witness format but the witness is only
another functioning process in the many colorings and flavoring in the
infinite potentials of the consciousness in its survival quest for
entertainment in physical forms. There is no *you* actually and this is the
crux of the enlightenment situation. The false identity thinks it will
survive but be enlightened when there is no one to become enlightened in the
first place. Realization of this with conviction is indeed true
enlightenment. The individual or seeker himself must relinquish the notion
that it exists as a seperate agenda.
Raan
All that compromise achieves is compromise but not knowledge.
Most often the truth is exclusive not inclusive. If seemingly opposed views
do not exclude one another then neither are complete and as such both are to
a greater or lesser degree in error. Still as far as theorizing and
speculating there are no hard an fast rules. Please see my recent post
regarding the reference point and the quantum future.
--
></>
Raan
It is not prior to spacetime unless you grasp that the past recedes backward
away from your present so that now is before the past and the future is that
which is prior to it which creates the past at this moment. The future is
that full potential. The relationship is orientational without being
spatial in the sense of extension. Here and there and now and then included
in a holistic now moment. The creation and destruction of existence happens
is happening right now.
--
></>
Raan
Consider the future in its true nature as distinct from the past. Quantum
physics does not hold to a timeline or spacetime continuum view of the
future, but a future open to all possibilities while certain probabilities
allow for reasonable prediction. At any point the future is in effect all
possibilities at once including the possibility of no possibility. So what
you call the reference dimension 'compactified' all energy in one object or
even one point, is the future that is right now. And as far as
consciousness goes it is always of the past even if it is the immediate past
on a scale of nanoseconds. All form belongs to the past. Our awareness and
indeed our will as it observes the past and wills it in the present, is the
future, the reference dimension 'compactified' in one point that is you and
not you at once. The materialistic view is always in retrospect.
--
></>
Raan
I read that quickly without getting bogged down in the verbosity and
terminology and it actually made sense that way! I suspect you write it the
same way. To comment on what you said: In my terms that "plenum noumenon"
"infinite potential" is the future at this moment and all the rest is as you
state, the past, the phenomenal or actual. It is the physical while the
future is... for lack of a better term, the spiritual.
--
></>
dcnstrct
If you are too affraid to try buddhism then why are you here ?
You allready are a big mental problem, you are delusional, thats why
you suffer psychologically. The Buddha found a way to solve these
mental problems, and he presented this way out of delusion/suffering
as a set of experiments. You have to follow his experiments on your
own to see for yourself how delusional you allready are, and if there
is a way out.
This "technique" that Robert is talking about is part of that
experiment. It is all about seeing for yourself that the "you" is
only an empty concept. When you participate in this experiment you
start to become aware that you are not a solid thing, you are more
like a process or a movement. The body is a process and so is
thought, cognition, etc. You start to notice that there is no clear
beginning and ending to this process. In other words you see that
there is nothing that seperates "your process" from any of the
surounding processes. You come to realize that "you" do not exist
seperately from everything else. You are the flux, not part of a
flux, not an indivisual flux, the indivisualness is just something you
dreamed up. Saying "you are the flux" does not sound right either,
because the "you are" doesnt really need to be there. "You" and "Me"
are only useful words in a relative sense, not in the ultimate sense,
and when you do this experiment you are catching a glimpse at the
world in its ultimate sense, the world as it really is. Its this
glimpse into the true/ultimate nature of things that allows one to
become detached and peaceful in the relative world of everyday life.
The ultimate and relative are not two. Freedom in the relative world
is found by applying this ultimate view to relative life, so that
there is only one view, a non-delusional view of ultimate/relative
reality aka enlightenment.
When you're delusional then you have a 500lb gorilla hanging on your
back named "me". This gorilla is not real, its imaginary, but you
don't know that, so you suffer under its weight. You do whatever you
think will please him, you run away from whatever you think will upset
him, and you drag him around with you everywhere. It really sucks,
but most people just accept it and live miserable lives enslaved by
their imaginary primate captures. They know that they are suffering,
but they never really look at the root of the problem, they never
stare the ape right in the eyes and say "who are you, and what the
fuck do you think you're doing ?" Instead they'd rather die for their
ape, they'd rather kill others to protect it. They'd rather horde
banannas. Its a sick sad world, but thats the situation.
I suggest you do the experiment. What do you have to lose ?
--Gabe
That Guy
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
news:<suSdnfScZJ-...@giganews.com>...
> > "Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
> > > "," <rodr...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2h6jloF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > "Raan" <Raa...@One.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:raorc.83941$325.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > > Robert.
> > > > > There is no arguing with you at all.
> > > > > None of any of your arguments have been without fallacies.
> > > > > This may have been unintentional or it may have been deliberate.
> > > > > So you are either stupid, or you are an asshole, or you are both.
> > > > > In any case for me to keep arguing with you makes me a fool.
> > > > > Still it was better to have been a fool than a stupid asshole.
> > > > > This discussion is over and done.
> > > > > You win.
> > > > > --
> > > > > ></>
> > > >
> > > > When you are perfect you can then expect it from others. Everything
you
> > said
> > > > here about Robert can also be said about you.
> > >
> > > Funny, I thought we were all perfect, just deluded into thinking
> > > otherwise. If spacetime is a continuum,
> >
>
> Rainbows and mirages are illusions but they have perfectly
> rational and physical explanations. If the illusion lasts for all
> time, it's a continuum.
Just as illusions exist in the minds that perceive them, space-time exists
in the mind of God.
JPL Verhey
Did you discover all this before or after you heard and read a lot about
Zen?
cupcake
> Re: killfile
>
> From: "JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu>
> Reply to: [1]"JPL Verhey"
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:35:03 +0200
> Organization: Tiscali bv
> Newsgroups:
> [2]alt.philosophy.zen,
> [3]alt.zen,
> [4]alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,
> [5]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [6]soc.culture.jewish
> Followup to: [7]newsgroups
> References:
> [8]<raorc.83941$325.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [9]<2h6jloF...@uni-berlin.de>
> [10]<7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com>
> [11]<2h8b08F...@uni-berlin.de>
> [12]<7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com>
> [13]<2h951iF...@uni-berlin.de>
> [14]<7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com>
> [15]<2ham53F...@uni-berlin.de>
> [16]<7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com>
> [17]<40B2132...@verizon.net>>[18]news:40B2132...@verizon.net...
he prahlly discovered it juzt after he discovered his prostate,
up inside his butt hole, with his finger, juzt after he wuz
25 years old...
Grey Adept
"dcnstrct" <ga...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
news:4b92a5c8.04052...@posting.google.com...
>
> If you are too affraid to try buddhism then why are you here ?
Fear has got nothing to do with it. It would be more like deeply held
beliefs that stop me from trying Buddhism. You got a problem with that?
And why am I here -
This thread passed by and I got on. You got a problem with that either?
JPL Verhey
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> wrote in message
news:8_tsc.410$Ra....@news.more.net...
...
> > Did you discover all this before or after you heard and read a lot
> > about Zen?
> >
>
> he prahlly discovered it juzt after he discovered his prostate,
> up inside his butt hole, with his finger, juzt after he wuz
> 25 years old...
I bet you were the "non-person" "witnessing" those crimes...
"Watch this show and you'll always have an alibi.."
Pat Harrington
Yes, with respect to your last statement, of course. This is the
view of the spacetime continuum from outside of it--everything occurs
at once. But we're in it, so we detect the flow of events. After
some thought, I had the idea that what was being discussed in some
parts of this thread was "the universe" and what was being discussed
in other parts was "the spacetime continuum". I would differentiate
the two by saying it is the physical and conscious universe that
blinks in and out of existence within the overall continuum.
Brahma is the universe--the physical expression of energy that
creates all that there is. Shiva is the witness--the consciousness
that pervades the physical and changes(destroys) it in accordance with
its will. Vishnu stands as the basis for Shiva understanding how to
use Brahma--it is the wisdom that gives everything its purpose. And
Brahman is the one and only thing that really exists--it is the
continuum and its contents.
Pardon my lapse into Hindu mechanisms of expression, but this
aspect of the relationships of these parts is easily drawn from their
mythology.
Pat Harrington
I'm not sure whether that's good or bad.
Pat Harrington
I think what you are referring to as the continuum is what I
would call the universe. The universe has these qualities but the
continuum goes on beyond it and may have experienced innumerable
universes over time. How much continuity do your dreams have? My
dreamscape certainly has enormous continuity. If I put a pair of
socks in a drawer in a dream, when I open that drawer in a subsequent
dream, those socks will be there. I've also noticed that, in my
dreamscape, there is no death. All of my relatives and dead friends
are all reachable in my dreams, although I "know" that they have died,
there is no shock upon seeing them in a dream and I can and do
communicate with then as I would with dream-versions of people that I
know to be still alive. I'm not trying to say, by this, that I
communicate with the dead, no, I'm just pointing out a feature of my
dreamscape in that anyone can be there, dead or alive. This factor is
also true of myfather's dreamscape.
I've always wondered about the link between spacetime and the
dreamscape. Because my experience shows great continuity but usually
a temporal lag, i.e., things will tend to happen in the waking world
before thay occur or are recognised as having occured in my
dreamscape. I've also wondered about the possibility of continuity
between two people's dreamscapes. It would be very revealing if one
could find two very lucid dreamers who tend to dream about the same
areas in the waking world. Would it be possible for one to leave a
message in the dreamscape to be found and understood by the other? If
so, it would change our entire view of things.
Robert Epstein
JPL Verhey wrote:
it's a somewhat long and complex history. do you have a point you are
trying to make? I'll be happy to discuss the course of events that led
to the above view, if you are actually interested in the details.
robert
Robert Epstein
cupcake wrote:
you're looking in the mirror again, cupcake. but then again, do you
have anything better to do?
robert
Robert Epstein
Pat Harrington wrote:
Transpersonal dreaming is a possibility.
robert
Lifeform Bri
Does that happen?
Grey Adept
"Lifeform Bri" <life...@thisplanet.here> wrote in message
news:I1Bsc.547850$Pk3.313051@pd7tw1no...
Does what happen?
Grey Adept
In your own continuum, only you decide.
Raan
"JPL Verhey" <p...@nospamwhatsoever.nu> wrote in message
news:40b26eb2$0$41755$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
Crimes??
--
></>
Raan
These people go way too far when they say that the self is nonexistent.
There is no way to know this for certain any more than one can know for
certain that there is a self. Any idea of self is illusory like a mirror's
reflection, but like a mirror that reflection may correspond to a reality.
There is no way to be ultimate certain either way, so it remains a practical
truth that works to a degree and in other respects does not work so it can
be taken up or dropped as required. That is what is known as
non-attachment.
--
></>
Raan
I prefer to talk of past present and future as immediately experienced and
scientifically understood by Quantum theory as well as Relativity. you did
not respond to my other posts on this subject. Did you read them?
--
></>
dcnstrct
> "dcnstrct" <ga...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
> news:4b92a5c8.04052...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > If you are too affraid to try buddhism then why are you here ?
>
> Fear has got nothing to do with it. It would be more like deeply held
> beliefs that stop me from trying Buddhism. You got a problem with that?
From what you wrote it sounded like you were affraid the technique
would make you go crazy :) Thats why I assumed fear was the issue.
Now I see you're wrestling with a much bigger problem... deeply held
beliefs. I could have helped you with the fear, but I don't know how
to help when it comes to the ladder.
good luck sir.
--Gabe
JPL Verhey
My point of interest is how one should deal with "the risk" of explaining
oneself into certain terms only after we have been exposed to them. This
makes me usually suspicious, "even" to Zen. We wear those terms (beliefs,
ideas) as a pair of spectacles through which we then see ourselves and the
world with the colorfull meanings residing in such spectacles, but "seen" in
the world. They become more and more real. It's like repetitious marketing.
Even though we may be aware of the fact that we wear a lot of those
spectacles that color the world (put on our noses by culture in general,
which could include Zen), once they are there they seem to resist being
removed, or even recolored.
I don't know too much about Zen.. but it appears that it is itself a koan.
Like "Zen helps you once you see that it is of no help." .. "One must
understand that there is nothing to understand" .. "Drop the idea that there
is anything you must drop" etc etc.
Once I understood these kinda Zennish lessons, I dropped Zen. It wasn't even
difficult. But there is kind of fun to the idea that frivolously telling
other people that Zen-nonsense will free them from all nonsense. Like
missionaries that come tell me that I don't need them.
Awaken21
Or not.
Robert Epstein
JPL Verhey wrote:
Well, I do think that the ideas and culture of zen provide a lens that
one sees through. But that seeing is part of the realization that zen
promotes through those ideas. Is it possible to have an intellectual
understanding of "emptiness" and non-existence of the self and
mistakenly think that these concepts are realization or awakening? Yes,
it is very possible. That is why the ideas may promote a certain kind
of awareness, but unless that awareness is developed through a
legitimate practice [of some kind] the result is very uncertain. You
are right that one can keep talking about zen as a set of ideas forever
without experiencing what it is about first-hand.
I think that you can divide those who talk about zen into those who
think or have experienced that it represents a radical break with the
ordinary mind-set, and those who regard it as a quaint or interesting
philosophy to be played with intellectually. The two groups are very
different. One can be defined as practitioners, and the others are not.
Robert
Grey Adept
"Awaken21" <lu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:29c89f8.04052...@posting.google.com...
Or not not.
Grey Adept
"dcnstrct" <ga...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
news:4b92a5c8.04052...@posting.google.com...
> "Grey Adept" <g...@anuntrueemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:<c8tqgh$j8h$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "dcnstrct" <ga...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
> > news:4b92a5c8.04052...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > If you are too affraid to try buddhism then why are you here ?
> >
> > Fear has got nothing to do with it. It would be more like deeply held
> > beliefs that stop me from trying Buddhism. You got a problem with that?
>
> From what you wrote it sounded like you were affraid the technique
> would make you go crazy :) Thats why I assumed fear was the issue.
> Now I see you're wrestling with a much bigger problem... deeply held
> beliefs. I could have helped you with the fear, but I don't know how
> to help when it comes to the ladder.
>
> good luck sir.
>
> --Gabe
When it comes to the ladder, not only am I not on the lowest rung, but I
think I may have lent the thing to somebody who has moved out of town whose
name I've forgotten anyway.
JPL Verhey
>
.........
Maybe its like with music. There are people who make music, others only
study and write about music as musicologists. And there are people who fall
somewhere in between doing a bit of both.
Pat Harrington
I did, but have been very busy today and wanted to give a proper
response rather than a hurried one. I view things from a modified
M-theory point of view, so I have to rectify the two, if and where I
can, before I jump in and look stupider than I might actually be.
Raan
Understood and appreciated.
What NG do you post from?
A new thread might be in order.
--
></>
naked_apes
Except as a possibility, there is no future, only the past happening over
and over again, now. .. Ape;)
naked_apes
"That Guy" <7...@f.com> wrote in message
news:_b2dnW8Xtth...@giganews.com...
>
> "Pat Harrington" <PatrickDH...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7517a083.04052...@posting.google.com...
> news:<suSdnfScZJ-...@giganews.com>...
> >
> > Rainbows and mirages are illusions but they have perfectly
> > rational and physical explanations. If the illusion lasts for all
> > time, it's a continuum.
>
> Just as illusions exist in the minds that perceive them, space-time exists
> in the mind of God.
Where is the mind of God if not within each sentient being? Ape;)