Talking to the wall is not Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

As I waft through The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, over and over I come across statements like "God alone is real, and all else is illusory," and "after attaining the Knowledge of Brahman one does not see the two. Then there is no differentiation; it is One, without a second—Advaita—non-duality", and various references of the ascension to the Absolute and descent to the Relative.

Here is a great passage from page 307:
The manifold has come from the One alone, the Relative from the Absolute. There is a state of consciousness where the many disappears, and the One, as well; for the many must exist as long as the One exists. Brahman is without comparison. It is impossible to explain Brahman by analogy. It is between light and darkness. It is Light, but not the light that we perceive, not material light.

Again, when God changes the state of my mind, when He brings my mind down to the plane of the Relative, I perceive that it is He who has become all these—the Creator, māyā, the living beings, and the universe.

Again, sometimes He shows me that He has created the universe and all living beings. He is the Master, and the universe His garden.

He is the master, and the universe and all its living beings belong to Him'—that is Knowledge. And, 'I am the doer', 'I am the guru', 'I am the father'—that is ignorance. 'This is my house; this is my family; this is my wealth; these are my relatives'—this is also ignorance.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Russell wrote:As I waft through The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, over and over I come across statements like "God alone is real, and all else is illusory," and "after attaining the Knowledge of Brahman one does not see the two. Then there is no differentiation; it is One, without a second—Advaita—non-duality", and various references of the ascension to the Absolute and descent to the Relative.

Here is a great passage from page 307:
The manifold has come from the One alone, the Relative from the Absolute. There is a state of consciousness where the many disappears, and the One, as well; for the many must exist as long as the One exists. Brahman is without comparison. It is impossible to explain Brahman by analogy. It is between light and darkness. It is Light, but not the light that we perceive, not material light.

Again, when God changes the state of my mind, when He brings my mind down to the plane of the Relative, I perceive that it is He who has become all these—the Creator, māyā, the living beings, and the universe.

Again, sometimes He shows me that He has created the universe and all living beings. He is the Master, and the universe His garden.

He is the master, and the universe and all its living beings belong to Him'—that is Knowledge. And, 'I am the doer', 'I am the guru', 'I am the father'—that is ignorance. 'This is my house; this is my family; this is my wealth; these are my relatives'—this is also ignorance.
Ramkrishna did not write any gospels, being illiterate. His "gospel" is a collection of his sayings compiled by his disciples, especially Vivekananda. Since none of his disciples, including Vivekananda, had any degree of wisdom, there's no reason to trust their interpretations of his sayings. However, in the section you quoted, he seems to be echoing my view rather than yours.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Russell Parr »

jupiviv wrote:Ramkrishna did not write any gospels, being illiterate. His "gospel" is a collection of his sayings compiled by his disciples, especially Vivekananda. Since none of his disciples, including Vivekananda, had any degree of wisdom, there's no reason to trust their interpretations of his sayings.
The book I am referring to is this one, which is a recording of the teachings and conversations of Sri Ramakrishna, as transcribed by his close disciple Mahendranath Gupta, who goes by simply "M." throughout the book.
However, in the section you quoted, he seems to be echoing my view rather than yours.
I beg to differ. When Ramakrishna says "there is no differentiation", this goes against your suggestion that forms persist. When he says that the Brahman is impossible to describe, this sounds a lot different than "1 thing + all things = the infinite".

Other quotes I found:
  • "The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real. The world is of the nature of magic. The magician is real but his magic is unreal."
  • "But you must remember that everything is possible for God. He is formless, and again he assumes form."
  • "Why shouldn't a man be able to realize the formless Brahman? But it is extremely difficult. He cannot if he has even the slightest trace of worldliness. He can be directly aware of Brahman in his inmost consciousness only when he renounces all sense-objects—form, taste, smell, touch, and sound—and only when his mind completely stops functioning. And then, too, he knows only this much of Brahman—that It exists."
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter.
Reading is the very definition of applying perceptual filters and interpretation. The difference is that I'm not denying that but your claim does.
If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?
The secret is to transcend your mind and body. You go to a place of infinite light, love/agape and truth. Once you do this you can peer into your mind and body as if in the third person.
Sounds good until you realize that you're still hiding a lot of mind before your own gaze. Then it suddenly looks like self-indulgence and emo-tripping.
I know
Diebert:
That's the issue right there! Claims to a mind and body, transcending those, places of light and truth and some truthful out-of-body perspective. They are just new illusions you promote instead of the old ones. In reality they are based on the same. With the difference that you are made to feel special.
If the voice in your head is you?

Who is the one listening to it?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?
In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other.
If the voice in your head is you?

Who is the one listening to it?
I don't have voices. For me it's like visual thinking unless I talk or write when I visualize the words. I'd classify as "real picture thinker" although it's more complex than plain visual. So you will have to tell me how it is to have a voice or thinking in words and phrases. And I'm not kidding, just explaining. As were it all comes from, who knows? Who is listening? There's is no band, no audience. Conceiving of such is memory reconstruction, very limited.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?
In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other.
You did not answer the question. This is how I know who are the ones that intentionally deceives. If you you obfuscate, use misdirection and deflect by projecting you are preserving what?

Do not ever avoid questions, deceive or deflect. This is the path to illumination.
If the voice in your head is you?

Who is the one listening to it?
I don't have voices. For me it's like visual thinking unless I talk or write when I visualize the words. I'd classify as "real picture thinker" although it's more complex than plain visual. So you will have to tell me how it is to have a voice or thinking in words and phrases. And I'm not kidding, just explaining. As were it all comes from, who knows? Who is listening? There's is no band, no audience. Conceiving of such is memory reconstruction, very limited.
Interesting!

Who is the one seeing the images?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?
In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other.
You did not answer the question. This is how I know who are the ones that intentionally deceives. If you you obfuscate, use misdirection and deflect by projecting you are preserving what?

Do not ever avoid questions, deceive or deflect. This is the path to illumination.
But I think I answered it? You don't like the answer and then deny it even is an answer. This is how I know you are a liar. Not intentionally but you've been doing that your whole life. Why stop? It's like breath now I suppose. And you're projecting the desire for truth on others who are all deceived, asleep and so on. Of course.... you define your self by stating the other into a negative frame only. It's how it works...even for "me".
Who is the one seeing the images?
The images are born in conception, inside this conversation, this exchange. Are you reading?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert:
But I think I answered it? You don't like the answer and then deny it even is an answer. This is how I know you are a liar. Not intentionally but you've been doing that your whole life. Why stop? It's like breath now I suppose. And you're projecting the desire for truth on others who are all deceived, asleep and so on. Of course.... you define your self by stating the other into a negative frame only. It's how it works...even for "me".
Here is the conversation:
Being:
This has been taught by every sage that has ever lived.

Diebert:
Still making things up. No wonder for someone born, raised and housed in the religion of lie and deception: raping truth now has become habit.

Being:
No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter.

Diebert:
Reading is the very definition of applying perceptual filters and interpretation. The difference is that I'm not denying that but your claim does.

Being:
If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?

Diebert:
In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other.
And you honestly, without compromise, objectively, rationally and logically answered the question?

If you believe that - you are hopelessly lost in mind ninja games of deception - and that is all I have to say about that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote: Being:
If one person pounds nails with a hammer and another uses a nail gun, which one is wrong and the other right?

Diebert:
In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other.

And you honestly, without compromise, objectively, rationally and logically answered the question?
You really don't understand that there are situations where a nail gun might be more fitting than a hammer or the reverse?

But my answer was pointing to the observation that you'll find a way to bend the answer and even change the meaning of your question if needed to remain right. It's a game where your life, your existence, your being depends on. So I fully understand. My task however is to challenge it nevertheless.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert:
You really don't understand that there are situations where a nail gun might be more fitting than a hammer or the reverse?
Duh?

Why do you think I asked the question?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:Diebert:
You really don't understand that there are situations where a nail gun might be more fitting than a hammer or the reverse?
Duh?

Why do you think I asked the question?
To be able to tell me that my answer is wrong? It will depend on context, and the questioner. My first answer was correct. Your question lacking.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Diebert:
You really don't understand that there are situations where a nail gun might be more fitting than a hammer or the reverse?
Duh?

Why do you think I asked the question?
To be able to tell me that my answer is wrong? It will depend on context, and the questioner. My first answer was correct. Your question lacking.
I asked which was wrong and which was right.

Not that difficult a question - mind if I have a crack at my own question?

There is no wrong or right because it depends on the circumstance.

That is what I meant when I said "No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter."

Pretty easy actually. I wonder why a sage like you had to juggle all day to get to this Simple Simon answer?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Talking to the wall is not Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:Diebert:
You really don't understand that there are situations where a nail gun might be more fitting than a hammer or the reverse?
Duh?

Why do you think I asked the question?
To be able to tell me that my answer is wrong? It will depend on context, and the questioner. My first answer was correct. Your question lacking.
I asked which was wrong and which was right.

Not that difficult a question - mind if I have a crack at my own question?

There is no wrong or right because it depends on the circumstance.

That is what I meant when I said "No, I just read without my perceptual right and wrong concept filter."

Pretty easy actually. I wonder why a sage like you had to juggle all day to get to this Simple Simon answer?
If you had reading skills or any will to discuss this honestly while not listening to your own voice the whole day...

... you would have seen that I answered your question like you did now your self, the first time around.

Here it comes again, my first answer: "In your case I'm sure it depends on who is holding the tool, you or the other".

Which is circumstance right? Combined with personal subjectivity and goal orientation. This is your problem Ken, it's all growing a bit over your head. There's somewhere a nice guy at the other end but you're just not reading, not comprehending because of a certain emotional block. This block can be seen most clearly in how you deal with topics like miracles, holy texts, conspiracies and the supernatural. What happened with you man? It must have been after your visions and transformational experiences. It took you on the wrong path (lie) instead of a higher path (truth). Perhaps to protect your self? Your being?

Therefore discussing anything with you becomes a not-so-merry-go-round since you don't care much about truth, examination, logic or consistency. You have overarching personal concerns causing you to rewrite and reinterpret anything how you'd like and then serve it back up in some steaming pile. What's the point? I'll leave you for others to discover and popping the balloon.
Locked