Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:33 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:27 am The focus on living life fully and optimally is implied in Buddhism proper.

The Four Noble Truths focused on sufferings and the mother of all sufferings as the critical bottleneck to living life fully [whatever that is].

We humans cannot define the purpose of life, but once the most terrible bottleneck blockage is modulated, then life will flow.

In positive psychology, flow, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.

In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Just like the dams are removed from a river system, the water will flow naturally in alignment with the contours of the Earth toward the ocean.
Note, the mentioned of the '10 oxen' in that article.

Well you can flow in a similar way in Advaita too, it just tends to be more joyful, colorful, usually. Assuming that life is dukkha, is already a distortion.

In general, within the core principles of advaita's focus on atman-brahman there is still that psychological baggage where the existential crisis [perhaps a sliver] is not eliminated fully. It is supralimnal thus not obvious.

The difference is VERY marginal but yet a 180 degree difference. If advaitin gives up the atman-brahman idea, then that by definition would be Buddhism-proper.

Actually a lot of Buddhists at the higher level philosophy are like the advaitin when they cling tightly to Buddha-Nature. Some Buddhists even believe in a God like the Abrahamic religions, i.e. those in the Pure Land Sects.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:35 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:29 amI don't think you read the article fully.

Oh I understand the article fully, don't project what you only think you know about other peoples understandings, as if you really know for real, when in truth you have no clue about. So, unlike you, I don't have to keep repeating my own knowledge back to myself like a parrot on steroids.
...

I am assessing your understanding based on what you posted in comparison to what is written in that article.

If you have understood that article effectively, you would not have asked me those questions.
I won't be wasting my time on them because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.

Your knowledge, my knowledge is not the issue here.

Knowledge has no final truth. .final truth's ARE IN THE DREAM OF SEPARATION. (fictional)

Final truth's of anything cannot be found in knowledge, all knowledge does is inform the illusory nature of reality in that there is no knower to know anything, except in the immaculate conception of that knowledge, which is Absolute Infinity right here, right NOW

There is no such thing as having 'blind faith' about it. You are IT

This is IT

.

There, I've just answered the question for you, that you were unable, or unwilling to answer.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:42 am In general, within the core principles of advaita's focus on atman-brahman there is still that psychological baggage where the existential crisis [perhaps a sliver] is not eliminated fully. It is supralimnal thus not obvious.

The difference is VERY marginal but yet a 180 degree difference. If advaitin gives up the atman-brahman idea, then that by definition would be Buddhism-proper.

Actually a lot of Buddhists at the higher level philosophy are like the advaitin when they cling tightly to Buddha-Nature. Some Buddhists even believe in a God like the Abrahamic religions, i.e. those in the Pure Land Sects.

I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:42 am In general, within the core principles of advaita's focus on atman-brahman there is still that psychological baggage where the existential crisis [perhaps a sliver] is not eliminated fully. It is supralimnal thus not obvious.

The difference is VERY marginal but yet a 180 degree difference. If advaitin gives up the atman-brahman idea, then that by definition would be Buddhism-proper.

Actually a lot of Buddhists at the higher level philosophy are like the advaitin when they cling tightly to Buddha-Nature. Some Buddhists even believe in a God like the Abrahamic religions, i.e. those in the Pure Land Sects.

I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.

I wonder where you got that idea.

I have mentioned the Two-Truths of Buddhism and it is also explained in that article, the person must give relevant attention to the empirical physical self and ensure there is no clinging to an idealized permanent self that survives physical death, thus facilitating the existing human self to 'flow' spontaneously.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:29 am
The above is another "oneupping" stratagem of the pseudo-advaitins;

Do these so called pseudo-advaitins actually exist for real?

Or are they like the God that you assume is an Impossibilty?

Are these pseudo-advaitins real?

If so.. where, what, who, why, how are they real...where is the exact location of these ''pseudo-advaitins''...please explain?

It's no good just assumming pseudo-advaitins exist...without proving that they do. All you are doing is what you accuse other ''believers in a God'' are doing. Your imagining things are there just like you accuse others of doing when they mention the word God.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot don't you...if your not then prove the existence of pseudo-advaitins?

I will look forward to your answers.

.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:58 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:42 am In general, within the core principles of advaita's focus on atman-brahman there is still that psychological baggage where the existential crisis [perhaps a sliver] is not eliminated fully. It is supralimnal thus not obvious.

The difference is VERY marginal but yet a 180 degree difference. If advaitin gives up the atman-brahman idea, then that by definition would be Buddhism-proper.

Actually a lot of Buddhists at the higher level philosophy are like the advaitin when they cling tightly to Buddha-Nature. Some Buddhists even believe in a God like the Abrahamic religions, i.e. those in the Pure Land Sects.

I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.

I wonder where you got that idea.

I have mentioned the Two-Truths of Buddhism and it is also explained in that article, the person must give relevant attention to the empirical physical self and ensure there is no clinging to an idealized permanent self that survives physical death, thus facilitating the existing human self to 'flow' spontaneously.

Giving up clinging to an idealized permanent self doesn't eliminate the existential crysis; it eliminates some of it, just like in Advaita.

And can lead to new forms of suffering in some people. Anyway these are just small differences, we highly agree about stuff. And it may also depend on the IQ of the individual which approach is better (since existential depression/suffering strongly correlates with IQ/giftedness). And there also various forms of the human self; some forms of it are pretty indestructible psychological structures, and can't ever be fully non-clinging; other forms can be. And the human self is also highly different in men and women etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:35 am I am assessing your understanding based on what you posted in comparison to what is written in that article.

My interpretation of reality will never be it, so you won't find what you are looking for in a comparison based interpretation of something that is never IT

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:35 amIf you have understood that article effectively, you would not have asked me those questions.

Your the one who is taking about impossibilities... not me...I'm simply trying to get you to prove those accusations? which you are ignoring because all you are doing is expecting me to agree with you, and if I don't then its because I have no understanding of the article ..which has nothing whatsoever to do with asking you those questions...haha, you are so funny. You just keep throwing out one distraction after another, to avoid listening to what is actually being pointed to.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:35 amI won't be wasting my time on them because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.

Notice I have never said that to you, because I actually find you facinating to talk to. What exactly do you believe there is here in reality that is counter to itself?

I find it absolutely fascinating that someone could come out with such an outrageous statement like ..'' because you lack foundation thus not be able to understand [not necessary with] my point to counter it effectively.''

When I'm trying to point to you the realisation that there is no one here to make such assumed ''differentials''... albeit in the dream, a fictional illusional story within the dream of separation. That you AV believe is real.

To ignore this ''subject'' is to have a closed mind to any alternate way of thinking. So be it, but don't think I won't be on to you, because I will continue to point out stuff you may have overlooked...which involves questions...so ignore the questions all you like, you can run, but you cannot hide. If you can't answer simple questions about what you think you know, then what you think you know, is just nothing more than a barking dog.



.

Veritas and Dontaskme, I disagree with you both.

How is that possible? You two are not on any agreement.

This is bothering me. Intellectually, not socially or on a psychological, personal level.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.

I don't think that's the case. From this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193 I find lots of parallels between Buddhism and systems thinking and so (anecdotally) the end result for me has been to establish a clear boundary of where the "self" starts and ends and where "society" starts and ends, and the relationship/interactions between the individual and the collective, as well as our collective responsibility to each other. It is system dynamics.

What has been eliminated is the ego. The need to assert my world-view over yours (even though you may FEEL that is what I am doing to you).

Instead: I can show you the contradiction in your way of reasoning. Show you the way I fix that contradiction in my way way of reasoning. e.g I provide - constructive feedback.

The choice remains with you whether to enact the changes in your episteme. For I do not wish to take choice away from any person. Except when their choices result in harm.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:40 am Veritas and Dontaskme, I disagree with you both.

How is that possible? You two are not on any agreement.

This is bothering me. Intellectually, not socially or on a psychological, personal level.

We are not in agreement because Veritas believes that the illusion is not real.

Where as I don't believe anything, because I am the direct experience of the illusion as being self-evidently instantaneously verifiable... Not inferred or reified

My claim that reality is an infinite non-physical hallucination is verifiable.
But only you yourself can verify it, because there is nothing other than your ''first person appearances'' so there's nothing outside of appearances you can appeal to.

I cannot prove it to ''another'' because the whole problem here is that ''others'' are not conscious of what I am.
If you realised that I was you, you would have your proof. But you think I am not you.

It takes a massive leap in consciousness to realise that I am you.It takes another massive leap in consciousness to realise that you are nothing.
It takes another massive leap in consciousness to realise that you are reality.

Infinity is an infinite Acausal chain of infinite creativity, there is no break in the chain. Every concept is infinite.

.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:40 am This is bothering me. Intellectually, not socially or on a psychological, personal level.

So you are experiencing "bother" that is not psychological? How does that work?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:48 am

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:40 am Veritas and Dontaskme, I disagree with you both.

How is that possible? You two are not on any agreement.

This is bothering me. Intellectually, not socially or on a psychological, personal level.

We are not in agreement because Veritas believes that the illusion is not real.

Where as I don't believe anything, because I am the direct experience of the illusion as being self-evidently instantaneously verifiable... Not inferred or reified

My claim that reality is an infinite non-physical hallucination is verifiable.

.

So you are saying that experiences of the external world are real? Yes! I agree.
So are experiences of the "internal world" (your body). Those are also real.

But the world "real" doesn't matter because somebody else may decide that the 'outside world" is real while the inside world is 'not real'.

You are tripping over words/language!

Whether we call them "illusions" or "experiences" or "feelings" - we are talking about the same phenomena. Using DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

Perception IS reality! Now, how do you propose we invent a SHARED LANGUAGE so that we can speak about OUR perceptions?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:41 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:51 am I see Buddhism "eliminate" the existential crysis by eliminating the human self. A very elaborate form of depersonalization, self-deception. If your leg hurts cut it off.

I don't think that's the case. From this thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193 I find lots of parallels between Buddhism and systems thinking and so (anecdotally) the end result for me has been to establish a clear boundary of where the "self" starts and ends and where "society" starts and ends, and the relationship/interactions between the individual and the collective, as well as our collective responsibility to each other. It is system dynamics.

What has been eliminated is the ego. The need to assert my world-view over yours (even though you may FEEL that is what I am doing to you).

Instead: I can show you the contradiction in your way of reasoning. Show you the way I fix that contradiction in my way way of reasoning. e.g I provide - constructive feedback.

The choice remains with you whether to enact the changes in your episteme. For I do not wish to take choice away from any person. Except when their choices result in harm.

Well if you ask me, by default you have a strange form of "non-clinging" mind, since your left hemisphere is overriding the right one, or something like that. So you can't ever know what people are talking about here.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:58 am Well if you ask me, by default you have a strange form of "non-clinging" mind, since your left hemisphere is overriding the right one, or something like that. So you can't ever know what people are talking about here.

Are you using "know" in an approximate or absolute sense?

Absolute knowledge is impossible, so if that's your criterion then I have nothing further to say. I have an approximate idea of what people are talking about. Is it approximate enough? Depends on the criteria for success.

Whether my model is better than your model (round vs oblate Earth) that's what we decide via debating.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:02 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:58 am Well if you ask me, by default you have a strange form of "non-clinging" mind, since your left hemisphere is overriding the right one, or something like that. So you can't ever know what people are talking about here.

Are you using "know" in an approximate or absolute sense?

Absolute knowledge is impossible, so if that's your criterion then I have nothing further to say. I have an approximate idea of what people are talking about. Is it approximate enough? Depends on the criteria for success.

Whether my model is better than your model (round vs oblate Earth) that's what we decide via debating.

Well if you ask me, by default you understand dichotomies, like approximate vs absolute, differently than how most people understand it. Because you left hemisphere is overriding the right one, or something like that.