Post Enlightenment Observations

[Saumaya]

2 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

Question. How do you view other human begins ? Particulary, when you're interacting with them ? Whether it be on this forum or in person ? 

Just like people.I have noticed that the more the person is  identified with their ego, the more they look mad. I have been recently working on accepting people as they are. If I want to change them, I want to give them a suggestion consciously rather than compulsively, though that has nothing to do with enlightenment.

As far as interacting goes, Its more like consciously pretending as I listed in my points.

Cheers

[Saumaya]

2 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Well, the body naturally creates the sense of self identity although we can expand our awareness to be conscious of the unity in all things. Since mind subconsciously creates the sense of self identity the effects of this is evident in creating paradigms of separation but if someone is authentically awakened to unity it will differ drastically.

OK  I can sort of understand this, but your long posts are hard understand man

[Shanmugam]

2 hours ago, SOUL said:

 

Does it matter if I disagree? It shouldn't and that is why I ask what if someone has a differing experience perspective, it shouldn't matter. Although, there are people who express that their experience perspective is the absolute truth by using absolute terms in how they speak about it.

I don't tell people they are already enlightened and that they don't have to do anything, that's you lying again since you already admit you lie but I am aware enough to recognize you building a false narrative straw man even without your admission.

I say what I said to who I was speaking to, not to everyone I ever talk to so what I say to someone who has no understanding isn't what I say to the person who I made that post to. You are again building a false narrative straw man because you yourself say you change what you say for who you are speaking to, why can't I? You can't deceive me!

It doesn't matter to be considered "enlightened" and isn't why I ask people if they exclude others based on experience perspective. I ask because if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation but if they want to be acknowledged as "enlightened" they will speak in exclusionary terms so expose their own intentions in answering.

If someone authentically has an experience perspective of unity they will recognize it in others and won't deny it others. Isn't that essentially what Namaste means? So, I prefer to focus on the already existing unity we share and seek to help others be aware of self created separation that may remain so awareness of our unity is increasing in clarity.

I don't understand why people will seek to limit experience perspective by telling others that the absolute is limited by using absolute terms. It's a paradox that absolute is relative in how each of us perceives it so using absolute terms actually attempts to limit the infinite so it fits our own perspective but doesn't actually limit the infinite in any way, obviously.

We don't have to illuminate the sense of separation in others, they perceive it in themselves already as the sense of self creates it subconsciously. So adding additional separation perspectives only creates more stumbling blocks to being aware of the unity that exists.

Even recognizing that the sense of separation is part of the whole absolute weakens that sense's empowering hold on someone perspective. Acknowledging the absolute is in unity on both sides of the sense of separation and even is the sense of it shatters the illusion once realized so why lie about it as a teaching tool, be genuine about it from the start.

My way of speaking about my experience may differ from others but I don't tell them they are wrong or flawed in their experience. Although, if they are speaking about separation from the perspective of separation it's going to be different than speaking about separation from the perspective of unity, I speak from unity.

Does this reply satisfy what you sought from me? Or will you ask me again since you seem to think I'm somehow not responding to your queries to your satisfaction?

 

 

"Does it matter if I disagree? It shouldn't and that is why I ask what if someone has a differing experience perspective, it shouldn't matter. Although, there are people who express that their experience perspective is the absolute truth by using absolute terms in how they speak about it."

I already told you once; the bottom line is, end of seeking... If your seeking has really ended, then any disagreement that can arise between us can only be semantics or you are not carefully paying attention. That is why I mentioned about 'selective attention'... Because, I have already addressed a lot of things that you disagreed with. 

"I don't tell people they are already enlightened and that they don't have to do anything, that's you lying again since you already admit you lie but I am aware enough to recognize you building a false narrative straw man even without your admission."

It looks like you are just reacting to the words based on the connotation. The word here is 'lie'. Are you even familiar with some teaching methods that have been used from time immemorial? For example, in Vedanta, there is a method called adhyaropa apavada. It means just this: They intentionally attribute certain qualities to the truth in order to give a little conceptual basis to the mind. Finally, they also negate the intentionally attributed qualities. In casual language usage, I will simply say that this is intentional attribution is 'lying'! .. I sometimes use the words so casually. Shankara in his atmashatkam says 'I am neither enlightened nor in bondage'... This is true. Because, Adhi Shankara saying 'I am enlightened' will be actually a lie.What is the meaning of the word 'lie' in the first place? You don't lie in your life at all? If you are telling a lie for some kind of selfish desire, that is different. But other than that, everyone lies for some practical reasons.. When a person asks another person 'How are you', does he always say the truth?

"I say what I said to who I was speaking to, not to everyone I ever talk to so what I say to someone who has no understanding isn't what I say to the person who I made that post to. You are again building a false narrative straw man because you yourself say you change what you say for who you are speaking to, why can't I?"

You can! When did I say you can't? Only now you are telling me this. But anyway, when I look at the nature of the posts you post in general, I don't see much other than 'bahahaaa'... So, probably after seeing some future posts of yours, I may see this. But based on what I have been saying for the past few days, I haven't witnessed even a friendly conversation that goes between you and another person. Your posts have a tone of 'fault finding' (as much as I have seen)... 

"It doesn't matter to be considered "enlightened" and isn't why I ask people if they exclude others based on experience perspective. I ask because if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation but if they want to be acknowledged as "enlightened" they will speak in exclusionary terms so expose their own intentions in answering."

I don't really see how this applies to me when you say "if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation"... I have carefully studied the methods used in Vedanta, Buddhism and psychotherapy which went on for one year. There are things which have been already tried when it comes to guiding others to enlightenment. I am just combining all these methods in the best possible way. On the contrary, you just seem to have a belief about what works for people and what doesn't.. In fact, I explained this very clearly to you once.

"If someone authentically has an experience perspective of unity they will recognize it in others and won't deny it others. Isn't that essentially what Namaste means?  So, I prefer to focus on the already existing unity we share and seek to help others be aware of self created separation that may remain so awareness of our unity is increasing in clarity."

If that is what you prefer, go ahead and do it. But why should I follow your preference? What I prefer to do is not only based on my experience, but also based on the year long research I did.  

You need to understand that it is you who first come up with some kind of disagreement. When you disagree with something, I just want to discuss and find out why. If someone says something which is really useful for guiding other people, I have no problem to take it. I have been discussing with couple of other established teachers. No one ever said 'you are teaching duality'. In fact, it was you who made this assumption in another thread, while I never even said 'I am teaching non-duality' in the first place.. I don't really like to use strong words such as 'teaching', 'teacher', 'guru' etc... As far as I am concerned, I only want to address myself as a friend who can give guidance to other people to end their own suffering.

You are the one who is sounding like an authority here without even doing a research in some of the teaching methods that were used from time immemorial. And you are the one who is trying to push your preference of 'how to teach'...

You should not forget another thing.. Almost every enlightened person guides another person based on what worked for him. I have seen this in many people. Ramakrishna insisted that Bhakthi was the best path because that is what worked for him; Ramana Maharshi taught self-inquiry because that worked for him and he woke up quite easily. Shankara insisted that one should read Vedas, scriptures etc and become a monk because that is what worked for him. On the other hand, Buddha rejected Vedas because he knew very well that studying Vedas didn't play any role in his enlightenment. So, some kind of bias tends to happen and you cannot avoid it. Are you looking for a perfect flawless world or what? 

I am doing what the best that I can do based on  my experience and based on the guidance I got...That is all I know..

Edited February 27, 2018 by Shanmugam

[Nothing000]

29 minutes ago, Saumaya said:

Just like people.I have noticed that the more the person is  identified with their ego, the more they look mad. I have been recently working on accepting people as they are. If I want to change them, I want to give them a suggestion consciously rather than compulsively, though that has nothing to do with enlightenment.

As far as interacting goes, Its more like consciously pretending as I listed in my points.

Cheers

But they're not just people ... are they ? 

" recently working on accepting people as they are " ? You are enlightened, aren't you ? There shouldn't be any work at all, my friend.

 

" If I want to change them ... " ? Why would you want to change anyone ?

 

" consciously pretending " ..... why pretend ? That requires effort.

 

Lastly, why " post " enlightenment ? Enlightenment just is. There is no pre nor post. " Post " presupposes there's an " after " enlightenment.

 

I apologize for the many questions, Saumaya.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Nothing000

[Saumaya]

Good Questions

11 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

But they're not just people ... are they ?

What are they then?

12 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

recently working on accepting people as they are " ? You are enlightened, aren't you ? There shouldn't be any work at all

Enlightenment is not a magic pill. Yes I am in complete acceptance of everything, but I still have to maintain a functioning ego which can still get annoyed and loose its tolerance. As i said in one of the points, ego becomes adaptable and changeable. 

14 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

If I want to change them ... " ? Why would you want to change anyone

For example my mother drinks two cups of tea together everyday. I want to suggest to her that drinking two cups of tea can be harmful as she is taking a lot of caffeine. I want to do it in a conscious way. If she violently replies that who am I to tell her this, its my job to not react to that. I will still give her the reasons but ultimately its up to her. The point is, if you want to suggest a change to other people, you do it consciously rather than compulsively. Just a random example I used to illustrate that.

19 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

consciously pretending " ..... why pretend ? That requires effort.

 

A bit yes but not that much. After some time, it becomes autopilot and every response comes out of spontaneity. Nevertheless, I dont mean effort, when I say I am pretending. Its more like I am fooling other people in a way that the persona I am exhibiting seems to them as my real self(which it isnt)."Un enlightened" people think the persona they exhibit is their real selves.

23 minutes ago, Nothing000 said:

Lastly, why " post " enlightenment ? Enlightenment just is. There is no pre nor post. " Post " presupposes there's an " after " enlightenment.

Good question. Yes there is no pre and post enlightenment. Absolute Truth was always absolute. It is just that the false self goes through a journey of killing itself. So pre enlightenment would be before the false self is killed and post after the false self has been killed. It is only a matter of context and perspective to explain these esoteric things.

[SOUL]

16 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

"Does it matter if I disagree? It shouldn't and that is why I ask what if someone has a differing experience perspective, it shouldn't matter. Although, there are people who express that their experience perspective is the absolute truth by using absolute terms in how they speak about it."

I already told you once; the bottom line is, end of seeking... If your seeking has really ended, then any disagreement that can arise between us can only be semantics or you are not carefully paying attention. That is why I mentioned about 'selective attention'... Because, I have already addressed a lot of things that you disagreed with. 

"I don't tell people they are already enlightened and that they don't have to do anything, that's you lying again since you already admit you lie but I am aware enough to recognize you building a false narrative straw man even without your admission."

It looks like you are just reacting to the words based on the connotation. The word here is 'lie'. Are you when familiar with some teaching methods that have been used from time immemorial? For example, in Vedanta, there is a method called adhyaropa apavada. It means just this: They intentionally attribute certain qualities to the truth in order to give a little conceptual basis to the mind. Finally, they also negate the intentionally attributed qualities. In casual language usage, I will simply say that this is intentional attribution is 'lying'! .. I sometimes use the words so casually. Shankara in his atmashatkam says 'I am neither enlightened nor in bondage'... This is true. Because, Adhi Shankara saying 'I am enlightened' will be actually a lie.What is the meaning of the word 'lie' in the first place? You don't lie in your life at all? If you are telling a lie for some kind of selfish desire, that is different. But other than that, everyone lies for some practical reasons.. When a person asks another person 'How are you', does he always say the truth?

"I say what I said to who I was speaking to, not to everyone I ever talk to so what I say to someone who has no understanding isn't what I say to the person who I made that post to. You are again building a false narrative straw man because you yourself say you change what you say for who you are speaking to, why can't I?"

You can! When did I say you can't? Only now you are telling me this. But anyway, when I look at the nature of the posts you post in general, I don't see much other than 'bahahaaa'... So, probably after seeing some future posts of yours, I may see this. But based on what I have been saying for the past few days, I haven't witnessed even a friendly conversation that goes between you and another person. Your posts have a tone of 'fault finding' (as much as I have seen)... 

"It doesn't matter to be considered "enlightened" and isn't why I ask people if they exclude others based on experience perspective. I ask because if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation but if they want to be acknowledged as "enlightened" they will speak in exclusionary terms so expose their own intentions in answering."

I don't really see how this applies to me when you say "if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation"... I have carefully studied the methods used in Vedanta, Buddhism and psychotherapy which went on for one year. There are things which have been already tried when it comes to guiding others to enlightenment. I am just combining all these methods in the best possible way. On the contrary, you just seem to have a belief about what works for people and what doesn't.. In fact, I explained this very clearly to you once.

"If someone authentically has an experience perspective of unity they will recognize it in others and won't deny it others. Isn't that essentially what Namaste means?  So, I prefer to focus on the already existing unity we share and seek to help others be aware of self created separation that may remain so awareness of our unity is increasing in clarity."

If that is what you prefer, go ahead and do it. But why should I follow your preference? What I prefer to do is not only based on my experience, but also based on the year long research I did.  

You need to understand that it is you who first come up with some kind of disagreement. When you disagree with something, I just want to discuss and find out why. If someone says something which is really useful for guiding other people, I have no problem to take it. I have been discussing with couple of other established teachers. No one ever said 'you are teaching duality'. In fact, it was you who made this assumption in another thread, while I never even said 'I am teaching non-duality' in the first place.. I don't really like to use strong words such as 'teaching', 'teacher', 'guru' etc... As far as I am concerned, I only want to address myself as a friend who can give guidance to other people to end their own suffering.

You are the one who is sounding like an authority here without even doing a research in some of the teaching methods that were used from time immemorial. And you are the one who is trying to push your preference of 'how to teach'...

You should not forget another thing.. Almost every enlightened person guides another person based on what worked for him. I have seen this in many people. Ramakrishna insisted that Bhakthi was the best path because that is what worked for him; Ramana Maharshi taught self-inquiry because that worked for him and he woke up quite easily. Shankara insisted that one should read Vedas, scriptures etc and become a monk because that is what worked for him. On the other hand, Buddha rejected Vedas because he knew very well that studying Vedas didn't play any role in his enlightenment. So, some kind of bias tends to happen and you cannot avoid it. Are you looking for a perfect flawless world or what? 

I am doing what the best that I can do based on  my experience and based on the guidance I got...That is all I know..

It seems like you are still seeking but I don't really care about all this stuff..... I don't know anything.

I am at peace.

[Shanmugam]

4 hours ago, SOUL said:

It seems like you are still seeking but I don't really care about all this stuff..... I don't know anything.

I am at peace.

'It seems like you are still seeking' - thats your belief! 

' I don't really care about all this stuff'

I simply do what I enjoy doing this moment and that causes a lot to be accomplished, without even a feeling that I am doing all this...That is exactly how life is happening for me..

It is your 'fault finding' posts which starts a conversation with you and me... I have absolutely no issues with discussing things. And as you always do, you have completely ignored the whole post I made by saying 'I don't know anything.I am at peace.'...

Why do you care about posting in this forum then? What makes you to post 'bahahhaa' in the threads? Why do you care about the kind of posts the people make here and find faults? thats my question..  .. 

[Double Dutch]

This forum needs more compassion and love. A lot of topics end up in discussing the Absolute. Over and over again. If you guys are really liberated maybe now is the time for embodying that truth and work on cultivating other qualities.

[Shin]

1 hour ago, Double Dutch said:

This forum needs more compassion and love. A lot of topics end up in discussing the Absolute. Over and over again. If you guys are really liberated maybe now is the time for embodying that truth and work on cultivating other qualities.

 

[Nothing000]

10 hours ago, Saumaya said:

Good Questions

What are they then?

Enlightenment is not a magic pill. Yes I am in complete acceptance of everything, but I still have to maintain a functioning ego which can still get annoyed and loose its tolerance. As i said in one of the points, ego becomes adaptable and changeable. 

For example my mother drinks two cups of tea together everyday. I want to suggest to her that drinking two cups of tea can be harmful as she is taking a lot of caffeine. I want to do it in a conscious way. If she violently replies that who am I to tell her this, its my job to not react to that. I will still give her the reasons but ultimately its up to her. The point is, if you want to suggest a change to other people, you do it consciously rather than compulsively. Just a random example I used to illustrate that.

A bit yes but not that much. After some time, it becomes autopilot and every response comes out of spontaneity. Nevertheless, I dont mean effort, when I say I am pretending. Its more like I am fooling other people in a way that the persona I am exhibiting seems to them as my real self(which it isnt)."Un enlightened" people think the persona they exhibit is their real selves.

Good question. Yes there is no pre and post enlightenment. Absolute Truth was always absolute. It is just that the false self goes through a journey of killing itself. So pre enlightenment would be before the false self is killed and post after the false self has been killed. It is only a matter of context and perspective to explain these esoteric things.

" What are they then ? "

Saumaya, you should very well know who they/we all are. And I'm a little surprised (as I've read through all your posts) that you've not mentioned it. Not even once. 

But I've interfered in this thread long enough. Will take my leave and let it run it's course.

 

Love you, Saumaya, and wish you well on this journey. ❤

[Saumaya]

2 hours ago, Nothing000 said:

" What are they then ? "

Saumaya, you should very well know who they/we all are. And I'm a little surprised (as I've read through all your posts) that you've not mentioned it. Not even once. 

 

You want me to see them as monsters?

You mean like false selfs with beliefs about reality which they have to continuously maintain so they could maintain their falseness but if they discover their true core, they would realise that their falseness never existed in the first place.

Or you are saying  more like a  solipsist who says people dont exist in the first place

Remember whatever you project onto anything is just your beliefs about that thing or person. I would recommend you to throw whatever you have heard from other people and me and just make sense of it  through your own experience. Nothing magical happens in enlightenment. I can go into detail why nothing really changes after enlightenment other than the effects I talk about and the end of duality.

Love you too man <3

Edited February 27, 2018 by Saumaya

[Nahm]

@Nothing000 Appreciating your compassion and sensitivity.  ❤️

[Ether]

@ShinI dont fight...

 

I...

[SOUL]

6 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

'It seems like you are still seeking' - thats your belief! 

' I don't really care about all this stuff'

I simply do what I enjoy doing this moment and that causes a lot to be accomplished, without even a feeling that I am doing all this...That is exactly how life is happening for me..

It is your 'fault finding' posts which starts a conversation with you and me... I have absolutely no issues with discussing things. And as you always do, you have completely ignored the whole post I made by saying 'I don't know anything.I am at peace.'...

Why do you care about posting in this forum then? What makes you to post 'bahahhaa' in the threads? Why do you care about the kind of posts the people make here and find faults? thats my question..  .. 

I know why why are falsely portraying me as "fault finding". You "intentionally attribute certain qualities to the truth" and now you expect me to answer to your attributed "qualities" which isn't the truth but what you add and in this circumstance are a false narrative. You post smiley and laughing faces but you are "fault finding" with me laughing? I know why and find it hilarious but I will reply to what you have started with me.

"I already told you once; the bottom line is, end of seeking... If your seeking has really ended, then any disagreement that can arise between us can only be semantics or you are not carefully paying attention. That is why I mentioned about 'selective attention'... Because, I have already addressed a lot of things that you disagreed with."

So, that's your "bottom line"... but why do you place that on me? Why do you measure me or anyone else according to your standard... your "bottom line"? If your seeking has ended why do you seek to measure others by your own "bottom line"? Are you really done seeking?

I don't disagree with you and have said this to you before, maybe you could be paying attention to what others say to you instead of concern yourself with whether they are paying careful attention to you. Who has authority in the absolute?

"It looks like you are just reacting to the words based on the connotation. The word here is 'lie'. Are you when familiar with some teaching methods that have been used from time immemorial? For example, in Vedanta"

You "intentionally attribute" what you think others' perspective is in false ways, why do you do that? It doesn't matter what the Vendetta says. Who has authority in the absolute?

"If that is what you prefer, go ahead and do it. But why should I follow your preference? What I prefer to do is not only based on my experience, but also based on the year long research I did.  

You need to understand that it is you who first come up with some kind of disagreement."

Yes, that is my point when I do ask if differing perspectives, even if contrasting ones, matter in whether someone will drawn a line between if someone says there 'is' and there is 'not'. It's preference and perspective.

I don't draw that line even though I do recognize some things will lead to a perspective of unity and others lead to one of separation but in reality there is no line, it's only a perception of a line that our mind may see.

Differing perspectives doesn't equate to disagreement unless someone sees it that way in their perception, I see unity even if it is many paths that lead to it though I may ask questions for clarity.

"I have been discussing with couple of other established teachers. No one ever said 'you are teaching duality'. In fact, it was you who made this assumption in another thread"

It does appear to be teaching from duality if someone is teaching a binary "is" and "is not" perspective. I wasn't the only one who questioned you about it in that thread you started with that binary theme and wasn't even the first but am I the only one you follow around to remind?

"You are the one who is sounding like an authority here without even doing a research in some of the teaching methods that were used from time immemorial. And you are the one who is trying to push your preference of 'how to teach'..."

I never told you don't teach it , I just ask why do you teach it? You are the one who has warned me against teaching in this thread and at other times. I speak from my experience and I do question others, I ask lots of questions of people to understand their experience if I can.

Others start threads with themes about what 'is' and 'is not' enlightenment but I don't, I ask questions, even the thread I ever started was a question. Yet, you seem to find fault with my questioning so why are you disturbed by it? You are finding disagreement by me having a differing perspective and asking about yours?

Immemorial? That's the past, right? Even distant past? Really? The past? Not the present... but the past?

 

"Are you looking for a perfect flawless world or what?

I am doing what the best that I can do based on  my experience and based on the guidance I got...That is all I know."

I coexist with what is as it is even if I ask what is it?. I am being in experience as it is even if I don't 'know' anything at all so my peace, joy and well being isn't conditional on knowing or circumstance.

I don't guide others based on the guidance of others. Who has authority in the absolute?....Anyone and everyone has access in awareness so be at peace with it.

I didn't respond to you for a reason, I don't care about your arguing stuff but it's clear you are disturbed by my questioning. If you really were asking me to clarify my perspective I would answer more readily but this isn't what you are asking, you are wanting to argue over stuff.

I enjoy a discussion to cease self caused suffering through bringing to awareness in us the source of that suffering so there is healing and resolution in us. I don't know if this is that.

Has my response satisfied what you are seeking from me, yet?

Edited February 27, 2018 by SOUL

[Nahm]

Man, for two grown men who are ‘done seeking’, you both sure seem to be digging pretty deep for something. Two can tango. One is bliss. 

[Shanmugam]

@SOUL I already told you one thing... Many disagreements happen because of semantics.. In your reply, a lot of disagreement is due to only that.. And I am not going to say anymore word regarding the rest of it.  . Because then it will be a 'false portraying', according to you... 

But there has been too much fuss about the authority here.. Just because a person is not an authority, it doesn't mean that what that person says will not make any sense to me or doesn't have any value.. Of course, I don't consider anything as infallible authority... But it also doesn't mean that I am not going to listen to anyone, I am not going to try anything that anyone says, investigate or test anyone says either. 

I talked about Adhyaropa Apavada very briefly in my previous post, even though I have spent a year in actually trying to find out more about it.. I investigate not because I think it is an authority but because I know that history indeed has a value. Nobody would want to reinvent the wheel.  In fact, a very important criticism I have about Vedanta is that it says scriptures are infallible and eternal authorities.. I have written about it on my blog, Quora and in this forum too.

I have said something very clearly in this same thread. Here it is:

I don't think what has been said in that post is really that hard to understand. It pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. 

There are two things which are very important: skepticism and open-mindedness. And I never endorse considering something or someone as an infallible authority.

I have seen many people in my life. But this discussion has provided me an opportunity to find someone who is  ..............................................(I am not going to say that. But I promise it is not anything abusive at all. )

thank you  

 

 

[Shanmugam]

@Nahm this is exactly what is going on: 

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

Kevin: After all, everyone wants to be happy and fulfilled in their lives 

Martha: What if I don't want to be happy and fulfilled in my life? You are using a lot of authoritative statements...

Kevin: I guess we can't really have a conversation anymore then... 

Martha: that's hilarious... You said everyone 'wants' to be happy. You know what you want. but why do you place that on me? Why do you measure me or anyone else according to your standard... your "wanting"?

Kevin: ok.. We are done.. thank you

Martha: thank you  

Kevin: Alright, I want to have some tea. Do you want tea?

Martha: bahaaaa! Just now you said you 'want' to be 'happy' and now you 'want' tea'? 

Kevin:  I just said everyone wants to be happy. What is the problem with that? If you don't want to be happy then its fine.. No one forces you to be happy! 

Martha: I never said I don't want to be happy. I just asked you a question because I always question people.. By the way, for some reason, you don't want to let go of the conversation that we are 'done' with. You must inquire if you are really happy.

Kevin: But what is the purpose of the question? Can't we really have a normal conversation like everyone else?

Martha: that's hilarious.. Again, your standards of what is 'normal' need not be my standard of what is 'normal'. That is what I am telling you from the beginning.

Kevin: Alright, we are really done this time...

Martha: Whatever you say, my friend  

....................... End................

(by the way, Kevin is still curious to find out what is really wrong with Martha and why Martha is doing this. But he has discovered that having a conversation is not the best way to do that. )

 

[Saumaya]

@Shanmugam True lol

[SOUL]

38 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

@SOUL I already told you one thing... Many disagreements happen because of semantics.. In your reply, a lot of disagreement is due to only that.. And I am not going to say anymore word regarding the rest of it.  . Because then it will be a 'false portraying', according to you... 

But there has been too much fuss about the authority here.. Just because a person is not an authority, it doesn't mean that what that person says will not make any sense to me or doesn't have any value.. Of course, I don't consider anything as infallible authority... But it also doesn't mean that I am not going to listen to anyone, I am not going to try anything that anyone says, investigate or test anyone says either. 

I talked about Adhyaropa Apavada very briefly in my previous post, even though I have spent a year in actually trying to find out more about it.. I investigate not because I think it is an authority but because I know that history indeed has a value. Nobody would want to reinvent the wheel.  In fact, a very important criticism I have about Vedanta is that it says scriptures are infallible and eternal authorities.. I have written about it on my blog, Quora and in this forum too.

I have said something very clearly in this same thread. Here it is:

I don't think what has been said in that post is really that hard to understand. It pretty much summarizes what I wanted to say. 

There are two things which are very important: skepticism and open-mindedness. And I never endorse considering something or someone as an infallible authority.

I have seen many people in my life. But this discussion has provided me an opportunity to find someone who is  ..............................................(I am not going to say that. But I promise it is not anything abusive at all. )

thank you  

 

 

You have made many accusations of me and are offended if I question you about your views. If you question me about my views I will respond to clarify if I can but I don't get offended or disturbed by it. Although, you don't often ask about my perspective or experience, you want to argue about what you accuse me of.

When people say 'don't teach' to others or are saying enlightenment 'is' this and 'not' that leaves no room for any other view or suggest what they say is 'absolute truth' or suggesting that anything that differs from theirs is false they are speaking from authority. I'm not saying you did all these things, I'm just pointing out how someone is speaking from a mindset of authority.

I sometimes question people who speak that way to maybe understand their perspective and why they have this 'authoritative' perspective if I can understand it at all but I don't do it to argue or disagree. Some people are disturbed by it and get offended, some just have a discussion with me and we can learn about each other's perspective by it.

Sometimes all I can do is laugh, I find humor in lots of things and have nothing to say other than to laugh. If you feel laughed at it's your own sense of self that feels it and if we both are laughing we are laughing with each other. So if you find humor in my words then laugh and I will laugh with you....even if I ask what did you find funny.

[Shin]