It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, better is relative. But through logic, one can understand that seeing through the self will have positive implications for all that see it with no exception. Why? Because non acceptance is rooted from ego, which we all have.

But I'm reluctant to even state this, because I remember you saying that even if it is true that it does help it still doesn't make a difference. Which I still don't understand. Once, you say more positive is better and then you say it doesn't make a difference. This contradicts and the only way these two ideas can exist in harmony is if you were demonstrating two different points of views, which you haven't layed out clearly.

If that was the case he should have just made a post without marking it as reply to another post.

He was just responding to your post introducing something useful in which he could change your mind about what you've said. It doesn't mean he responded to you because you've said anything about his reply.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Which I still don't understand.

I guess it's because of the context.

Helping someone change a flat tire is helping someone out but will it make a difference in his life? Not necesarily.

One does not necesarily follow the other.

He was just responding to your post introducing something useful in which he could change your mind about what you've said. It doesn't mean he responded to you because you've said anything about his reply.

Why are you even making a big deal about it?

Even he didn't think it was out of line.

a reply to: daskakik

I guess it's because of the context.

Helping someone change a flat tire is helping someone out but will it make a difference in his life? Not necesarily.

One does not necesarily follow the other.

I understand that better is relative and what might work or be better for someone may not for the other. But I argue there are ways which work for everyone equally without exception. So in other words, ways which are better for everyone.
Then we use logic to find which ways are usually, occasionally, or always better according to the circumstance.
So once more. If it is true that seeing through the illusion of a self will benefit everyone who sees it without exception then it is better for every individual correct?

You're lost.
Why are you responding for him?

You're running out of excuses it seems.
Anyway, I've actually said why. It's because your way of replying to him has been the way you were replying to me and I took the opportunity to make my point about why you were doing that.

originally posted by: Andy1144
So once more. If it is true that seeing through the illusion of a self will benefit everyone who sees it without exception then it is better for every individual correct?

Not necesarily.

You're running out of excuses it seems.
Anyway, I've actually said why. It's because your way of replying to him has been the way you were replying to me and I took the opportunity to make my point about why you were doing that.

No excuses needed.

You're the only one making something out of nothing.

a reply to: daskakik

Not necesarily.

Explain why when you say that. It's not useful to just leave a short response and then not support it.

No excuses needed.
You're the only one making something out of nothing.

How so? You were wrong as far as I understood and used logic to break your fallacies down. But you couldn't so you replied with that.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Explain why when you say that.

It is what I have been doing in the past couple of pages.

How so? You were wrong as far as I understood and used logic to break your fallacies down. But you couldn't so you replied with that.

I don't even know what you are talking about.

I said X,

itisnow again said but Y and Z

and I said what does Y and Z have to do with X?

Then you went off on this tangent.

a reply to: Andy1144

look, I respect your opinion and you have made me understand much about DE, for which I am very grateful. But I have goals which goes beyond the recognition of DE.
I am not concerned particularly with states. But the only state I am after is one where the body and mind dissolves...when I get there, this is it.

In a way this could be called permanent and total DE, where sense of ego, mind and body is gone completely and I and non-I merges into emptiness forever.

Those who have dissolved their mind in the great void and turned into the big zero
know all this and therefore it is of utmost importance to follow them. Shree Samarth says that he
has to tell this time and again for the benefit of the disciples.

The Brahma or the Parbrahma is the only thing which is endless,
most constant, most still, beyond the realm of imagination and without imagination, highly
different from the visible (It is different from the void that remains after the visible vanishes),

a reply to: daskakik

It is what I have been doing in the past couple of pages.

Make it three pages, answer the question please.

I don't even know what you are talking about.

I said X,

itisnow again said but Y and Z

and I said what does Y and Z have to do with X?

Then you went off on this tangent.

But y and z did have something to do with x. You talked about how it's wrong to say less suffering and it isn't always beneficial. Then itisnow provided his evidence showing you may not be right.
But the issue started when you said, "he was saying I said something I never said" when it was obvious he was just trying to make his point.

a reply to: UniFinity

But I have goals which goes beyond the recognition of DE.
I am not concerned particularly with states. But the only state I am after is one where the body and mind dissolves...when I get there, this is it.

DE is reality. Basically you are saying, I wan't to go beyond DE by being in a state where the body mind dissolves. Where is that state going to happen if not in DE??
You don't really have goals beyond DE because that is where it is really all at. Look at your expectations.

In a way this could be called permanent and total DE, where sense of ego, mind and body is gone completely and I and non-I merges into emptiness forever.

And how are you going to do that? So far it seems you think no-self is a goal to be attained.
As I've asked you before, what is the most straightforward way you can know actual truth, which is beyond any state?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Make it three pages, answer the question please.

So the question is "If it is true that seeing through the illusion of a self will benefit everyone who sees it without exception then it is better for every individual correct?"

You start with "IF". It might not benefit everyone. Right there you go from "yes" to "maybe".

Now, this seems to be the concept that you are having trouble with, even if they do this, what actually changes?

You already said that nothing really changes so, there is no real difference.

But y and z did have something to do with x. You talked about how it's wrong to say less suffering and it isn't always beneficial. Then itisnow provided his evidence showing you may not be right.
But the issue started when you said, "he was saying I said something I never said" when it was obvious he was just trying to make his point.

Itisnow did not show any evidence.

How about you let him speak for himself, instead of putting words in his mouth?

a reply to: daskakik

You already said that nothing really changes so, there is no real difference.

Why only look at one of my perspectives when I clearly presented both? I said on the absolute, it doesn't make any difference whether anyone sees it because there is no self anyway. This doesn't imply that seeing through it isn't beneficial, it is.

Itisnow did not show any evidence.

How about you let him speak for himself, instead of putting words in his mouth?

We've been saying the exact same things that's why, but ok.
The evidence that seeing through the illusion of a self has positive implications for everyone, is that non acceptance is a thought arising from ego. If identification is lost then there will no longer be non acceptance. This is the same benefit for everyone, because we all have an ego, and all non acceptance arises from it.
This isn't to say there will be no more pain or negative feelings, but there will be acceptance of it. And accepting it is always better. Why? Because there is no longer the additional commentary suggesting things could have been otherwise or that the pain they're suffering is wrong. So it takes away a lot, if not all emotional suffering.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Why only look at one of my perspectives when I clearly presented both? I said on the absolute, it doesn't make any difference whether anyone sees it because there is no self anyway. This doesn't imply that seeing through it isn't beneficial, it is.

It isn't just a matter of perspectives. Things just are that way. It is as simple as:
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

We've been saying the exact same things that's why, but ok.

That is not what Itisnowagain's post said at all.

If it is found that there is no separate self then who would be suffering?
Suffering may happen but it is not happening to someone.

You pulled a whole lot out of those two lines but somehow missed that he is actually contradicting your idea that you can help people have a better experience.

a reply to: daskakik

It isn't just a matter of perspectives. Things just are that way. It is as simple as:
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

Ok.

That is not what Itisnowagain's post said at all.

I wasn't referring to what his post said. But nonetheless, ofcourse there were pretty obvious similarities.

You pulled a whole lot out of those two lines but somehow missed that he is actually contradicting your idea that you can help people have a better experience.

Your jumping off into too many assumptions. Who said I can help people have a better experience? And if I couldn't then why couldn't I?
And how does it contradict, please explain more when you say something like that.

a reply to: Andy1144

knowing, feeling, experiencing, yes even DE, and everything else...is from our prospective. Relative.

non-self is always here and everywhere, I know it is not different from me, I am non-I right now...

What I am talking about is dissolving the relative and than only absolute remains - so like permanent DE but on another level. This means not I AND not non I but something beyond, as explained in the quotes...

Even non I is part of the original illusion, from absolute point. Therefore it is not the final truth or reality.

I am sorry but we will not agree here, because I am a firm believer that Buddhist or Zen and other masters were telling the truth. Miracles are possible - spiritual powers are real. But not the point...just a distraction. Memories and feelings of previous lives are somewhere waiting to be discovered. But again not the point.
I am just giving some examples of what is possible when I and non I comes close to dissolution...these are one of the last tricks of Maya or illusion which is always trying to trick us.

Let me tell you something else since I mentioned drugs before. I had DE when on l s d. I was meditation totally without any expectations and no thoughts for hours in a trance and total darkness! There I lost my sense of body and mind and ego completely. I was only pure conciousness. This was something which I cannot even begin to describe I don't have such awesome imagination nor appropriate words! and I knew right there and then that pure conciousness is far beyond any body sense or experience which we can have while we are still clinging to body and mind.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I wasn't referring to what his post said.

So this whole tangent isn't about his post?

Who said I can help people have a better experience? And if I couldn't then why couldn't I?

Isn't that the gist of your question?

Your words:

The main theme of my what I was trying to say is, "trying to help others have the best experience possible."

And how does it contradict, please explain more when you say something like that.

If you know that suffering doesn't happen to someone then why would you worry about "trying to help others have the best experience possible."

You even accepted this inconsistency pages ago. I don't even know why you keep trying to justify it.

a reply to: daskakik

So this whole tangent isn't about his post?

No, although it did have enough similarities to call it so.

If you know that suffering doesn't happen to someone then why would you worry about "trying to help others have the best experience possible."
You even accepted this inconsistancy pages ago. I don't even know why you keep trying to justify it.

It's because you don't understand the paradox. If you see someone being suicidal because he thinks ghosts are real you can't just say, oh ghosts aren't real so his suffering isn't real, it doesn't make any difference if I snap him out of it. That's a cop out.
Suffering doesn't happen to anyone but as long as there is the illusion there is, then the experience of it is real, so in this sense it matters. What is there so difficult to comprehend here?

originally posted by: Andy1144
No, although it did have enough similarities to call it so.

Odd.

It's because you don't understand the paradox. If you see someone being suicidal because he thinks ghosts are real you can't just say, oh ghosts aren't real so his suffering isn't real, it doesn't make any difference if I snap him out of it. That's a cop out.

It's because I don't accept that the paradox exists.

It doesn't matter why anyone is suicidal. Everyone is going to die anyway. No amount of arguing on the net is going to change that.

Suffering doesn't happen to anyone but as long as there is the illusion there is, then the experience of it is real, so in this sense it matters. What is there so difficult to comprehend here?

Because it doesn't matter. If you have seen through the illusion then you know this.

Only someone still caught up in the illusion worries about other peoples pain.

ETA: Even itisnowagain has said this.

Helping happens or it doesn't.
But there is no one to help and no one who can help.

There is no one.

The one is expressing as what is happening - there is no other.

What is happening is all there is - it is not made of two things.

Everything is happening but it is not happening to someone. The 'someone' it might appear to be happening to, is an added extra that does not exist - has never existed and will never exist. There is no entity that anything happens to - life is just happening as this.

Words arise (as what is happening) and the stories the words tell, speak about 'me' - what I did, what I should have done, what I should do and what I shouldn't do, how to make my life better, my past, my future, my relationships, my life. Stories about 'me' tend to be about another time and place - in the future 'I shall do such and such but I won't do this and that'. It might appear that you can do stuff and that you did stuff - but are you doing now?? Is there actually an entity which does the beating of the heart, the digesting of food, the thoughts, the seeing - is there someone choosing to see or hear or sense? Sensing is happening. Immediate sense perception is happening - and then there maybe a story about what is happening - words would state - I am seeing, I am hearing, I am tasting, I am thinking. But 'immediate' sense perception would be prior to the story stating that 'I am' seeing - there would be just plain seeing (the truth is hidden in plain sight - in the plain action of seeing). Within the plain action of seeing there can be a dream of someone living a separate life in time and space (a me and other mes living in the world) - but no individual can have life - no thing is separate from life - there is only life. Life happens as what is happening - hunger happens, thoughts about what to eat follow, getting up moving toward food happens, eating happens. Phones ring, answering happens or doesn't, speaking happens - no one does any of it - life just happens. The suffering arises when there is an idea that there is a you that is doing life and that there are others doing stuff to you.
The truth shall set you free. The truth is that you aren't!! Now you are free and so is everyone else that you believed was 'in there'. Life is arising unconditionally - it always was - it was just a misconception that was the cause of blame, guilt and fear. When that which isn't drops away there is just what is arising without the blame, guilt and fear - unconditional love.

a reply to: daskakik

It's because I don't accept that the paradox exists.

It doesn't matter why anyone is suicidal. Everyone is going to die anyway. No amount of arguing on the net is going to change that.

Wikipedia definition of paradox - "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
You can't except things can contradict and still be true?
Just because someone will eventually die doesn't mean one can help ease their pain as long as they live. Your just dealing with one perspective.

So based on you, I should't take my mom to the ambulance when she needs it because she is going to die anyway. There is no point in giving her help. That's what you're saying.

Because it doesn't matter. If you have seen through the illusion then you know this.

Only someone still caught up in the illusion worries about other peoples pain.

ETA: Even itisnowagain has said this.

I've said this far too many times, so to avoid going in circles please put more detail and analysis in your replies so I know what your saying.

It doesn't matter to me on bit if someone suffers or not. It is pointless from one aspect. But that doesn't mean I don't help them when they need it.
I don't worry about others pain, through negativitiy and non acceptance. I simply do what is most logical to help another, when I find possible.

He did say that but was only addressing the absolute perspective without including the relative. He would probably agree that although suffering on some level doesn't matter, one can still be moved to help another, even after seeing the illusion.