The self-indulgence of spiritual work

[Nahm]

On 11/17/2020 at 4:48 AM, Cosmin_Visan said:

Why nobody read those philosophers and instead become self-satisfied with just a handful of flower-power sounding ideas ?

?

[Cosmin_Visan]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

There’s no “ I “, sans a thought that there is. Same for physics. It’s that it’s simplistic / self-evident...infinite can not know finite. Without deflection, projection, & ignore-ance, which you’re free to employ, it starts becoming rather obvious. 

I repeat: I'm waiting for you to deduce physics from consciousness. Is kinda boring to hear you all repeating the same mantra that "consciousness is all there is" all day long.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Cosmin_Visan

[hyruga]

On 11/17/2020 at 5:48 PM, Cosmin_Visan said:

I see people interested in spirituality only repeating a handful of ideas, like: consciousness is all there is, world is an illusion, time doesn't exist, we are God, etc. And that's pretty much all they say and they seem satisfied with these few ideas. Why do they stop there ? There are millions of philosophy pages written by thousands of philosophers that really do deep work into such problems. Why nobody read those philosophers and instead become self-satisfied with just a handful of flower-power sounding ideas ?

Because their ego is lazy.

Or once in a while, they will read them just to get more dopamine:)

[Nahm]

4 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

I repeat: I'm waiting for you to deduce physics from consciousness. Is kinda boring to hear you all repeating the same mantra that "consciousness is all there is" all day long.

Deduce: To determine by reasoning or deduction; specifically, philosophy.

Physics: Knowledge of nature. 

Consciousness is conscious it’s appearing as reasoning, deducing, philosophy & physics.

The intellect looking to be stimulated by consciousness is like a moth looking to be stimulated by a flame. Knowledge goes up in smoke, the I is lost to mirrors. 

[Cosmin_Visan]

@Nahm I know you think you are profound, but you are just shallow.

[TripleFly]

14 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

So based on your post, animals are more evolved than philosophers, since they don't use words.

Animals are one with life. Philosophers create a perspective from which they can philosophize about life, otherwise what would they philosophize? How can you speak about something without something: You create it, so you can talk about it. That's duality. And that's not really life because there duality is generated by us, it's in our minds and in the collective psyche. 

Don't get it wrong. Humans are the peak of evolution, but we can indulge in philosophy, more often than not as mental masturbation. Animals are simple, they are one with life. 

[Cosmin_Visan]

2 minutes ago, TripleFly said:

philosophy, more often than not as mental masturbation.

Can you give an example of a philosophical idea that is mental masturbation ? It sounds to me that you don't actually know what philosophy is.

[TripleFly]

1 minute ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Can you give an example of a philosophical idea that is mental masturbation ? It sounds to me that you don't actually know what philosophy is.

All philosophy is but child's play when you are one with life.

[No Self]

The philosophical skepticism of ancient Greece can provide a bridge between normal Western unconscious living and the most advanced nondual understandings. Ultimately, there comes a point where all intellectualism is a hindrance, but the likes of Pyrrho took philosophy about as far as it can be taken before it merges into spirituality. There are similarities to Buddhist scripture, but sans the claim of ego transcendence.

Pyrrhonists sought through achieving ataraxia (an untroubled state of mind), which they found could be induced by producing a state of epoché (suspension of judgment) regarding non-evident matters. Epoché could be produced by pitting one dogma against another to undermine belief, and by questioning whether a belief could be justified. In support of this questioning Pyrrhonists use ten tropes demonstrating that beliefs cannot be justified:[13]

1. Some things give animals pleasure which give other animals pain. What is useful to one animal is harmful to another.
2. Each human has a different assortment of preferences, abilities and interests.
3. Each sense gives a different impression of the same object.
4. There is no reason to think one is sane while others are insane—the opposite could be true.
5. Cultures disagree regarding beauty, truth, goodness, religion, life and justice.
6. There is no consistency in perception. (His examples were that the color purple will show different tints depending on the lighting, a person looks different between noon and sunset, and a very heavy rock on land is lighter when in water)
7. The senses can be shown to be deceptive. (From a distance, the square tower looks round and the sun looks small)
8. Things that strengthen in moderation will weaken when taken in excess, like wine and food.
9. When a thing is rare, it surprises people. When a thing is common, it does not surprise people.
10. Inter-relations among things are of course relative, and by themselves are unknowable. (e.g. to know 'parent' you must know 'child,' and to know 'child' you must know 'parent.' Neither can be known by itself.)

[Cosmin_Visan]

1 hour ago, TripleFly said:

All philosophy is but child's play when you are one with life.

Yeah, ok.

[LfcCharlie4]

I get your gripe, it sounds a little like you have an issue with Neo-Advaita, which is fair enough, at least in my view, as it comes from a mechanical repetition of ideas as you said. 

Have you checked out the works of 'Non-Duality Philosophers' such as Rupert Spira & Francis Lucille. They dive a lot deeper into Non-Duality and may help satisfy what you're after, they also have specific writings / teachings regarding Ne-Advaita and how mechanical repetition of these ideas, without the experiential understanding does nothing for us, infact, it simply adds a veneer of Pseudo-Non-Duality which if anything makes us more confused. 

Simply saying 'Suffering is an illusion' while your life is a living hell, is very different from an experiential understanding of say, Infinite Love and then using the medium of words, or whatever else, to help others get to that experiential understanding. 

In fact, Rupert has recently been doing Podcasts with other Philosophers & what not, so that may be of interest to you- ‎‎https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/rupert-spira-podcast/id1494564673

Here's also a basic introduction to Francis' work with several hundred questions from seekers over the years- https://francis.ugjka.net/eng/index.html

They both come from the same lineage. 

I know you won't want to hear this and think of it as 'Woo-Woo' or 'Flowery' but Non-Duality ultimately is about experiential understanding, not theoretical. 

I also wanted to add whoever said Individuality is an illusion, I would regard as incorrect, even post 'Enlightenment' (very exotic term, I know) there is still a personality and 'individuality' but you just know yourself not to simply be a separate self. For example, Rupert, Francis, Ramana Maharshi, Sadhguru etc etc all have very different personalities. 

My advice would be delve through some of the philosophical side of Non-Duality since it seems like that's what your after & then maybe the sentences won't seem so robotic. But, I also do agree when it doesn't come from a place of understanding, and is simply being parroted it is hardly helpful at all. 

Hope you enjoy the podcasts & reading through some of the Q&As, both also have websites & YouTube channels, as well as interviewes & speeches on YouTube at places like 'Science & Non-Duality.' 

Enjoy. 

 

[TripleFly]

7 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

@Nahm I know you think you are profound, but you are just shallow.

 

4 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Yeah, ok.

Who is it now that is being shallow? Or were I being too straight for philosophy?

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by TripleFly

[Nahm]

Arguably of course, the general theme around here is we want ya to know the consciousness first hand, as compared to thoughts about it. Seems however it seems, but when there is this direct experience it all makes infinite sense.

[Cosmin_Visan]

19 hours ago, TripleFly said:

Who is it now that is being shallow? Or were I being too straight for philosophy?

Yeah, ok.

[Cosmin_Visan]

21 hours ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

In fact, Rupert has recently been doing Podcasts with other Philosophers & what not, so that may be of interest to you- ‎‎https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/rupert-spira-podcast/id1494564673

Here's also a basic introduction to Francis' work with several hundred questions from seekers over the years- https://francis.ugjka.net/eng/index.html

Hope you enjoy the podcasts & reading through some of the Q&As, both also have websites & YouTube channels, as well as interviewes & speeches on YouTube at places like 'Science & Non-Duality.'

I will check them out.

I also have a speech at SAND:

And this is a good example of what understanding consciousness truly means, not the endless empty repetition of "Consciousness is love, infinite intelligence, infinite flower-power, etc".

[LfcCharlie4]

@Cosmin_Visan Cool, I have a feeling based on you coming from a more scientific standpoint that you and Rupert might disagree haha. 

Hope you enjoy, but yeah, you won't get much here, better off reading the works of modern & ancient sages! 

[hyruga]

Hi, 

I am Chinese so I don't write very well. But here's my understanding of consciousness. 

First of all, throw a man who can't swim into the ocean. Let say he drown. After 30 min, drag him back to the shore and try to revive him. You cannot revive him even if you have an artificial machine that can keep pumping his heart because his 'spirit/soul' is gone. 

So consciousness is first being aware of the spirit in us. Next take a woman. Let's say she cut and lost an arm in an accident so she lost part of her body but her consciousness remain.  So consciousness is more than the body. She is not her body. She is consciousness.

Now, a person's mind also tend to wander. There is a part of us that wants to control this monkey mind. So when we are more aware, we can take control of the monkey mind at times. Being aware means you have a higher state of consciousness.

Darkness happens in the absence of light. So darkness/brightness is the measurement of one thing just like hotness/coldness is the measurement of one thing. 

There are seven base units in the SI system:

the kilogram (kg), for mass

the second (s), for time

the kelvin (K), for temperature

the ampere (A), for electric current

the mole (mol), for the amount of a substance

the candela (cd), for luminous intensity

the meter (m), for distance

https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/meet-constants

Oh well where did I drift off to...

Now my consciousness brought me back here...or was it my mind...it will depends on what I define my mind to be I guess...

[saif2]

@Cosmin_Visan @Cosmin_Visan

@Cosmin_Visan

your worldviews and opinions limits your theorizing, what are you doing to get rid of them?

There are multiple intelligences like moral, cognitive, emotional intelligence and so on...

directed towrds different fields, physics is only one field out of hundreds.

As Leo puts it sucess is not truth, it is not happiness, sucess is not science 

if I think that consciousness  functions on a set of rules then you definitely don't know what it is, and neither do I ?.

 

[saif2]

@Corpus Thank you