Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by David Quinn »

Sphere70 wrote: If you read Schopenhauer you know what will is. It's the everything appearing as a seemingly dualistic being through a body. The surrender is the understanding (direct, not abstract / rational) that there is no separate experiencer / doer - thus understanding its illusionary nature. Resistance is still identifying with the manifested (including thoughts).
So what you call "surrendering" and "ceasing to resist" are not really surrendering and ceasing to resist, after all. Rather, they refer to understanding and ceasing to misindentify, respectively. And here I begin to agree with you.

So the difference between us now seems to boil down to whether understanding and ceasing to misidentify is achieved by reasoning or not. I say, yes (when used deeply to cut away everything that is false) and you say, no.

Perhaps there are only semantic differences at play here. Perhaps you are defining "reason" in such a way that it can only occur in a purely abstract, academic sense, and that what I call "reasoning" is something that you personally do actually use to open up to reality, but you're calling it something else. Is that possible, do you think?

-
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by jupiviv »

Sphere70 wrote:It's the everything appearing as a seemingly dualistic being through a body.

"Everything" cannot appear, by definition. It is only the parts of everything(i.e, things) that appear, and those parts are no more illusory than "everything" is. Duality and Unity are the same reality, and this logical identification is necessarily abstract, because of the aforementioned reason. What you are calling "direct" understanding is precisely the mistaken identification.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

David Quinn wrote:
Sphere70 wrote: If you read Schopenhauer you know what will is. It's the everything appearing as a seemingly dualistic being through a body. The surrender is the understanding (direct, not abstract / rational) that there is no separate experiencer / doer - thus understanding its illusionary nature. Resistance is still identifying with the manifested (including thoughts).
So what you call "surrendering" and "ceasing to resist" are not really surrendering and ceasing to resist, after all. Rather, they refer to understanding and ceasing to misindentify, respectively. And here I begin to agree with you.

So the difference between us now seems to boil down to whether understanding and ceasing to misidentify is achieved by reasoning or not. I say, yes (when used deeply to cut away everything that is false) and you say, no.

Perhaps there are only semantic differences at play here. Perhaps you are defining "reason" in such a way that it can only occur in a purely abstract, academic sense, and that what I call "reasoning" is something that you personally do actually use to open up to reality, but you're calling it something else. Is that possible, do you think?

-
‘Surrendering’ and ‘Ceasing to Resist’ is actually not bad descriptions if you consider what takes place. When the illusion is recognized as such – with the force that this implies – the identification with the body/mind as a separate doer/thinker and feeler ceases – the process is a surrendering (though there is not any ‘One’ that surrenders – this is an important distinction) of the illusion of “I” – which never existed as a thing-in-itself - to the impersonal consciousness which it actually already is; an impersonal consciousness which is the Truth/Infinite/Absolute/God/Void/Whatever expressed through/as the body/mind mechanism. Of course the illusion of “I” is also an extension of this Absolute but with its identification with the processes of the body/mind it will be experienced as what we all, lets say, experience day-to-day and which we suffer from (an idea as ourselves as a finite being) – nothing wrong with it in an ultimate sense, but it is an unnecessary suffering which often takes further expressions in psychical violence towards others, and similar behavior.

Our difference seems to lie with the importance placed on the body-function called thought (there is no thinker); which from these eyes is unimportant for the actuality of realization (which is not a Knowing of/in Thought but a Total Being of Truth, consequently saying 'Truth Is' and not saying 'I/You Know Truth') – though thought and its rational expressions is a necessary tool for dressing the Being of Truth in words for the purpose of communication – however clumsy a tool it might be sometimes.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

jupiviv wrote:
Sphere70 wrote:It's the everything appearing as a seemingly dualistic being through a body.

"Everything" cannot appear, by definition. It is only the parts of everything(i.e, things) that appear, and those parts are no more illusory than "everything" is. Duality and Unity are the same reality, and this logical identification is necessarily abstract, because of the aforementioned reason. What you are calling "direct" understanding is precisely the mistaken identification.
Damn man, you always get all British on me ,-)

Yes, duality and unity are the same reality. In the absolute sense, of course, all is the same reality - so it doesn't matter Really (!). The practicality though; there is a living experience as an individual doer/thinker & feeler in most cases that 'experience' suffering - an angst-ridden idea of something that was born and will die and disappear into oblivion (or eat grapes and vegetarian dumplings in a cyan-tinted heaven, depending on your identification).
So what I call 'Direct' contra 'Abstract' 'experience' is when the ties to the 'Abstract' (Identification as Thoughts & Emotions = Body & Mind) has 'realigned' itself with The I Am/Impersonal Consciousness/Truth itself there is an actual 'feeling' (or something in that ball-park) of being that Infinite (not any One being that, but just Being) - and the manifestations of the thoughts and emotions (and all other manifestations for that part) - with its fear for the future and painful nostalgia of the past - is presenting itself without the blinding leech of a constant identifier and claimer.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sphere70 wrote:
Our difference seems to lie with the importance placed on the body-function called thought (there is no thinker); which from these eyes is unimportant for the actuality of realization (which is not a Knowing of/in Thought but a Total Being of Truth, consequently saying 'Truth Is' and not saying 'I/You Know Truth') – though thought and its rational expressions is a necessary tool for dressing the Being of Truth in words for the purpose of communication – however clumsy a tool it might be sometimes.
You really have read too much Sri Nisargadatta, if that would be possible! Do you possess any other lingo? :-)

Speaking of Sri his communication was all about promoting understanding which enables one to test, to find any flaws expressed in ones own communication of proper understanding. This process can very well be called reasoning. To talk about "no thinker" or "impersonal consciousness" doesn't demonstrate much clarity and I can only advice you to examine these notions further and see if they hold up.

Here's a collection of Nisargadatta in this context:
  • Yoga is the science and the art of self-liberation through self-understanding
    Understand that you are both, the essence and the substance of all there is and remain firm in your understanding.
    Meditation is the art of achieving faith through understanding
    What I teach is the ancient and simple way of liberation through understanding. Understand your own mind and its hold on you will snap
    The mind can only focus the obstacles; seeing an obstacle as an obstacle is effective, because it is the mind acting on the mind.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sphere70 wrote:
Our difference seems to lie with the importance placed on the body-function called thought (there is no thinker); which from these eyes is unimportant for the actuality of realization (which is not a Knowing of/in Thought but a Total Being of Truth, consequently saying 'Truth Is' and not saying 'I/You Know Truth') – though thought and its rational expressions is a necessary tool for dressing the Being of Truth in words for the purpose of communication – however clumsy a tool it might be sometimes.
You really have read too much Sri Nisargadatta, if that would be possible! Do you possess any other lingo? :-)

Speaking of Sri his communication was all about promoting understanding which enables one to test, to find any flaws expressed in ones own communication of proper understanding. This process can very well be called reasoning. To talk about "no thinker" or "impersonal consciousness" doesn't demonstrate much clarity and I can only advice you to examine these notions further and see if they hold up.

Here's a collection of Nisargadatta in this context:
  • Yoga is the science and the art of self-liberation through self-understanding
    Understand that you are both, the essence and the substance of all there is and remain firm in your understanding.
    Meditation is the art of achieving faith through understanding
    What I teach is the ancient and simple way of liberation through understanding. Understand your own mind and its hold on you will snap
    The mind can only focus the obstacles; seeing an obstacle as an obstacle is effective, because it is the mind acting on the mind.
Man, you're sweating me ,-), my lingo is a fine cake-mix of the greatest and the smoothest criminals, all from the great Sri N, to the gangster UG, to the punning of Nietz, to my mom's kitchen-cursing all the way down to my genetic misfortunes.

Ok, if you call that method which Nisa. suggest 'reasoning' then I'm all for it. Though stretching the Balance (cap. B) of Art and Science. The reasoning of GF often strikes me as predominantly scientific in its aroma - like a damn expensive micro-wave dinner.

Let me conclude with some more Nizze quotes while we're at it:

"Get to know that ‘I am’ without words, which arises in the morning. Knowing the Self, abiding in the Self-knowledge, is not a mere intellectual knowing. You must be that, and you should not move away from it. Remain firm."



"As long as you take yourself to be a person, a body and a mind, separate from the stream of life, having a will of its own, pursuing its own aims, you are living merely on the surface, and whatever you do will be short-lived and of little value, mere straw to feed the flames of vanity."



"The mind craves for formulations and definitions, always eager to squeeze reality into a verbal shape."



"Put your awareness to work, not your mind. The mind is not the right instrument for this task. The timeless can be reached only by the timeless. Your body and your mind are born subject to time; only awareness is timeless, even in the now."


"There is nothing to do. Just be. Do nothing. Be. No climbing mountains and sitting in caves. I do not even say: "be yourself", since you do not know yourself. Just be. Having seen that you are neither the "outer" world of perceivables, not the "inner" world of thinkables, that you are neither body nor mind, just be."

"Why do you talk of action? Are you acting ever? Some unknown power acts and you imagine that you are acting. You are merely watching what happens, without being able to influence it in any way."

"Abandon every attempt, just be; don't strive, don't struggle, let go every support, hold on to the blind sense of being, brushing off all else. This is enough."
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

“Love is the meaning and purpose of duality.”
- Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

*

“It’s a filthy word, love. Love implies two.”

- U.G. Krishnamurti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBx9IDMZfIA
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Nis. talks about Consciousness as the One manifested and experienced as duality. UG talks about romantic love.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

Yes, in the link U.G. did specify in his first sentence that he wasn’t talking about:

“That nonsensical state that those bastards, those so-called enlightenment people, (are) talking about.”

And he also said that love is a filthy word because the implication of two creates a division. What he implies with that statement is that the division is an illusion. It's an illusion because the division created by the word "love," romantic or otherwise, exists only in the mind. Duality implies division.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Cahoot wrote:Yes, in the link U.G. did specify in his first sentence that he wasn’t talking about:

“That nonsensical state that those bastards, those so-called enlightenment people, (are) talking about.”

And he also said that love is a filthy word because the implication of two creates a division. What he implies with that statement is that the division is an illusion. It's an illusion because the division created by the word "love," romantic or otherwise, exists only in the mind. Duality implies division.
Ok, agreed. Duality implies division, of course. The word Love (as all words) is dualistic. And I also agree with that division is an illusion and that this is what he talks about when describing the 'natural state'.
Nis. is of course more 'positive' and poetic in language (closer to Lao Tzu in sentiment) and describes the Natural State as Love (at least in I Am That which is probably partly colored by Maurice Frydmans translation) - something UG would never do.

Nisargadatta on what he terms as love:

I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very
thing I look at, and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become
the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other
focal points of consciousness, love; you may give it any name you like.
Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two,
my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the
subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am
both, and neither, and beyond both.


Notice how this explanation is similar to UG's explanation (specially in the early recordings from 67-68 where he went in-depth about it) of his 'natural state' - minus the love-concept.


Funny (not to funny though ,-) story about UG's and Nissas 'supposed' meeting told by David Godman:

I heard a story that he also encountered U. G. Krishnamurti in Bombay. I will tell you the version I heard and you can make up your own mind about it. It was told to me by someone who spent a lot of time with U. G. in the 1970s.

It seems that Maurice Frydman knew U. G. and also knew that he and Maharaj had never met, and probably didn't know about each other. He wanted to test the theory that one jnani can spot another jnani by putting them both in the same room, with a few other people around as camouflage. He organised a function and invited both of them to attend. U. G. spent quite some time there, but Maharaj only came for a few minutes and then left.

After Maharaj had left Maurice went up to U. G. and said, 'Did you see that old man who came in for a few minutes. Did you notice anything special? What did you see?'

U. G. replied, 'I saw a man, Maurice, but the important thing is, what did you see?'

The next day Maurice went to see Maharaj and asked, 'Did you see that man I invited yesterday?' A brief description of what he looked like and where he was standing followed.

Then Maurice asked, 'What did you see?'

Maharaj replied, 'I saw a man Maurice, but the important thing is, what did you see?'
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Watch out for upcoming doc. about UG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKSCvftq ... re=related
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

Godman is accessible, you know. I bet he would appreciate hearing thanks for his work.
Sphere70 wrote:The word Love (as all words) is dualistic.
I would say that communicating with words is a dualistic activity, and that certain words such as “love” imply dualism. “Relationship,” also implies dualism. “Friendship,” is another.

Other words don’t imply dualism, even though they are used in the dualistic activity of oral and written communication.

“Non-dual,” is such a word, though more accurately it’s probably a term.
Even “dying” could be such a word, since we all die alone.

Thus, those initially seeking enlightenment often seek solitude, eschewing the dualism of love, relationships, and friendship, seeking to die to and be free of what has been known.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

btw: the context for the above quotation by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is from the book:

I AM THAT
Chapter 26: Personality, an Obstacle


Q: Can there be happiness in unity? Does not all happiness
imply necessarily contact, hence duality?
M: There is nothing wrong with duality as long as it does not
create conflict. Multiplicity and variety without strife is joy. In
pure consciousness there is light. For warmth, contact is
needed. Above the unity of being is the union of love. Love is the
meaning and purpose of duality.


http://www.maharajnisargadatta.com/I_Am_That.pdf
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sphere70 wrote:The reasoning of GF often strikes me as predominantly scientific in its aroma - like a damn expensive micro-wave dinner.
Science in general is a wonderful application of the critical and clarifying capacities of the mind. Especially when it comes to addressing any lingering self-indulging fantasy and rumor. In that sense it would be a good thing to smell a bit scientifically. In terms of style it also resonates better with our micro-wave nuclear hyper-society. Why don't you try it on for a while? :-)
"There is nothing to do. Just be. Do nothing. Be. No climbing mountains and sitting in caves. I do not even say: "be yourself", since you do not know yourself. Just be. Having seen that you are neither the "outer" world of perceivables, not the "inner" world of thinkables, that you are neither body nor mind, just be."
We could exchange these Eastern oriented Nissy quotes until the cows come home but one of the things you must have understood by now is that until one arrives at "nothing to do" without actually trying or desiring to "do nothing", first a lot of issues need to be addressed. By default the mind is always in place, telling all sorts of things which are in need of debunking. Most people don't even realize something is being told. They think it's them, their life, the world, all their is. In that situation it's not always wise to talk about states of non-action or not-being. Better to push for action, focus, persistence and ruthless analysis if there is to be any hope for further insight.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

By default the mind is always in place, telling all sorts of things which are in need of debunking.
While I agree at one level, the problem with this though is the belief and value of the debunker. Like there is an aspect outside of mind who debunks the faulty concepts, who weighs and measures and makes conclusions that will be helpful. The mind just splits itself into fragments, one part debunking the other - but both are equally in the mind and equally delusional. It's more direct to realize that both aspect are a delusion - but the danger and paradox remains; realizing this is also part of the mind.
That's why I say that rational realization is just another fragment of thought valuing the strings and dots it puts together with other thoughts, and that a divorce from the whole system of thought as reality and ruler is necessary - which in other terms is the same as loosening the ties of identification. How to do this? All words lie. Best to stay in silence.
Last edited by Sphere70 on Thu May 12, 2011 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Cahoot wrote:Godman is accessible, you know. I bet he would appreciate hearing thanks for his work.
Sphere70 wrote:The word Love (as all words) is dualistic.
I would say that communicating with words is a dualistic activity, and that certain words such as “love” imply dualism. “Relationship,” also implies dualism. “Friendship,” is another.

Other words don’t imply dualism, even though they are used in the dualistic activity of oral and written communication.

“Non-dual,” is such a word, though more accurately it’s probably a term.
Even “dying” could be such a word, since we all die alone.

Thus, those initially seeking enlightenment often seek solitude, eschewing the dualism of love, relationships, and friendship, seeking to die to and be free of what has been known.
Is Godman a friend of yours? I'm sorry to say I haven't read any of his works but I've been meaning to try and get the book he edited/compiled about Ramana Maharshi. The story that I pasted from him about UG and Nis. was from a good interview of him called 'Remembering Nisargadatta Maharaj': http://www.davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml


Yes, some words, while still being of dual nature, points toward a non-dual state,this is true.

A direct practice that everyone can cultivate though is the attempt to be silent. In conversational-mode this is very simple, but alas, how does one not talk to oneself constantly? Like a tape-recorder the mind constantly spews up its content. The silly thing though - we take these recordings to be of significance! And this is also another recording.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sphere70 wrote:Like there is an aspect outside of mind who debunks the faulty concepts, who weighs and measures and makes conclusions that will be helpful. The mind just splits itself into fragments, one part debunking the other - but both are equally in the mind and equally delusional.
This is why I evilly quoted Nissy on you: "The mind can only focus the obstacles; seeing an obstacle as an obstacle is effective, because it is the mind acting on the mind."

From some extreme absolute viewpoint which is no viewpoint at all, all statements wise or drunk might appear equally delusional, just like you living or dying is of no importance, or feeding or torturing an infant is all just blessed existence. But these ideas would rarely help you or anyone else, they don't move anything forward and certainly will not prevent gross misunderstandings and terrible applications.

The absolute only comes in sight, by itself, with no effort, when delusions, desire, attachment, emotions and their source are recognized, understood and given up.
It's more direct to realize that both aspect are a delusion - but the danger and paradox remains; realizing this is also part of the mind.
It's only more direct if you are willing to honestly think about how far this actually goes and let the realization do its destructive work when it brings up obstacles which have to be addressed first.
All words lie. Best to stay in silence.
Only those moments when you have nothing left to say. Words come and go like everything else. There's no "best" here.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

Is Godman a friend of yours?
We’ve never met.

This book is excellent.
http://www.amazon.com/Be-You-Are-Teachi ... 626&sr=8-1
A direct practice that everyone can cultivate though is the attempt to be silent. In conversational-mode this is very simple, but alas, how does one not talk to oneself constantly?
It’s possible, though obviously not by thinking about it. (Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. Thought processes can be accelerated over an extended time period and that can result in stillness that lasts for awhile, a sort of mental exhaustion.)
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

The absolute only comes in sight, by itself, with no effort, when delusions, desire, attachment, emotions and their source are recognized, understood and given up.
Agreed, but I'm saying, go to the main delusion / attachment directly instead of grapple with its ten thousand arms - and if you also pointed towards this with the above statement then we're in agreement.

From here the main delusion / attachment is the "I" which is a sense / feeling more then a thought / emotion. This gravity-point sticks itself and identifies itself with the body and certain aspects of thoughts and emotions that it deems as individually gratifying. It all leads back to this point.
And this is also how I understand Nisargadatta's concept of "I Am" and the first time I read about it it made perfect sense - the 'I Am' as the main illusion, the reference-point for subjective life. This is also what I read from Lao Tzu as his concept of the Tao (the Tao that can be named) or the Hindu concept of Atman, or the Descartes concept of the 'Seat of The Soul', or Schopenhauers concept as the Will through a particular organism. This is the main delusion and the source for abiding inquiry. If you don't abide in it (though abiding can be the wrong word but it will do for now) it will quite unconsciously leech on and identify itself with the pleasure and power surging aspect of the body/mind. By constantly gravitating towards this sensation stringed together with (I'll add this ,-) a rationalizing about it's nature; then I think things falls in place quite autonomously.

I think if one finds a way - everybody has their own way of doing this though - to reside firmly and function from this very subjective source then - at least from my experiences - the aspects of the body / mind with its many seemingly subjective representations and attachments becomes much clearer and 'further away' in a sense; this state is what I would call being conscious vs. being un-conscious.
Last edited by Sphere70 on Thu May 12, 2011 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Cahoot wrote:
Is Godman a friend of yours?
We’ve never met.

This book is excellent.
http://www.amazon.com/Be-You-Are-Teachi ... 626&sr=8-1
A direct practice that everyone can cultivate though is the attempt to be silent. In conversational-mode this is very simple, but alas, how does one not talk to oneself constantly?
It’s possible, though obviously not by thinking about it. (Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. Thought processes can be accelerated over an extended time period and that can result in stillness that lasts for awhile, a sort of mental exhaustion.)
Yes, thank you, that's the book I've been looking at. I'm gonna buy it, they have it next door.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

... but alas, how does one not talk to oneself constantly?
Sphere70, you are intelligent and enthusiastic with an affinity for Advaita, and unless the question is rhetorical you are seeking to know the answer via experience.

However, as you have the capacity, you may find that non-dual concepts from Buddhism offer substantial explanations that can help with an intellectual perspective on that question, as Buddhism really delves into taxonomic hierarchies.

A good place to start in relation to your question is with researching the terms: sems, sems nyid, and rigpa.

From what I’ve gathered, the essence of QRS (Truth) does not differ from the essence of Advaita or Buddhism.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

Cahoot wrote:
... but alas, how does one not talk to oneself constantly?
Sphere70, you are intelligent and enthusiastic with an affinity for Advaita, and unless the question is rhetorical you are seeking to know the answer via experience.

However, as you have the capacity, you may find that non-dual concepts from Buddhism offer substantial explanations that can help with an intellectual perspective on that question, as Buddhism really delves into taxonomic hierarchies.

A good place to start in relation to your question is with researching the terms: sems, sems nyid, and rigpa.

From what I’ve gathered, the essence of QRS (Truth) does not differ from the essence of Advaita or Buddhism.
Thank you, these are all new concepts for me (sems, sems nyid, and rigpa) and I will look them up with joy.

Yes, I haven't really got a great grip on the ideas of the QRS Philosophy, but as you say, they seem aligned in general aspects with both Advaita and Budd (specially with their - QRS - use of the Infinite in same lengths as the Advaita / Hindu. would use Brahman as the everything-principle).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sphere70 wrote:Agreed, but I'm saying, go to the main delusion / attachment directly instead of grapple with its ten thousand arms - and if you also pointed towards this with the above statement then we're in agreement.
So there's always one "main" delusion left to grapple with, no matter how "direct" the path is you're suggesting. The ten thousands arms are just contained in this one, so one is not really bypassing anything really. Even "going to the main delusion" might be another of the army of ten-thousand delusions, the one where you're going anywhere :-)
From here the main delusion / attachment is the "I" which is a sense / feeling more then a thought / emotion. This gravity-point sticks itself and identifies itself with the body and certain aspects of thoughts and emotions that it deems as individually gratifying. It all leads back to this point.
How would you answer someone who would criticize any distancing from this "I" as an attack on individuality, the promotion of sheepish thought and group-think, weak ego or even some schizophrenic, cracked psyche?
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Sphere70 »

So there's always one "main" delusion left to grapple with, no matter how "direct" the path is you're suggesting. The ten thousands arms are just contained in this one, so one is not really bypassing anything really. Even "going to the main delusion" might be another of the army of ten-thousand delusions, the one where you're going anywhere :-)
Yes, there is always this subjective sense of self which follows us wherever we go (except in deep sleep) and which we refer to as our reality.
This is the main illusion if you're not of dualistic beliefs / philosophy.
How would you answer someone who would criticize any distancing from this "I" as an attack on individuality, the promotion of sheepish thought and group-think, weak ego or even some schizophrenic, cracked psyche?
I'm not saying at all that this sense of "I", our closest and most tangible, subjective, reality, should be distanced from - quite contrary; it should be dived into; dwelled upon, constantly meditated on/in - it should be hold on to and it should grow stronger by its own attention on itself, and it is a practice for all activities of the day (not something which requires silent solitude even though sometimes this helps in the beginning). This seemingly 'dualistic' "I" seems more like a pulsating attention-point with strong means for identification than anything else, so when turned against itself its most powerful and not escapist at all. This is true courage and true knowledge.
And I agree with sheepishness and some schizophrenic behavior in the opposite direction - when one looses the touch and direct knowledge of this individual self (which isn't really individual at all, in its absolute extent, and that's why its illusionary), then one is just victim to the autonomous identification-mechanism with manifestations of whatever kind that appeals to it, without true knowledge of what the hell is going on - spending hard earned money with some half-ass psycho-analyst who seeks an empirical cause for every pain and so on until the $$$-account is popping and the sufferer is still suffering (though probably reduced slightly in strength because of useful medications). Or maybe a guru who bangs the chicks after sunset and takes thousands of dollars only to recite the more colorful passages from the Upanishads on opiates.
That's why the wisest say to let this sense of self that everybody has, be your teacher / your guru / your guide further into yourself. Nothing else is needed.

This is a quite beautiful passage from I Am That; Nisargadatta Maharaj which relates well to the above discussion about the seemingly dualistic "I" (the I Am) and the importance to get to know it experientially:

Go deep into the sense of ‘I am’ and you will find. How do you find a thing you have mislaid or forgotten? You keep it in your mind until you recall it. The sense of being, of 'I am' is the first to emerge. Ask yourself whence it comes, or just watch it quietly. When the mind stays in the 'I am' without moving, you enter a state which cannot be verbalized but can be experienced. All you need to do is try and try again. After all the sense ‘I am’ is always with you, only you have attached all kinds of things to it -- body, feelings, thoughts, ideas, possessions etc. All these self-identifications are misleading. Because of them you take yourself to be what you are not.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

Post by Cahoot »

So, was the question rhetorical?
Locked