Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on May 12, 2020 1:21:50 GMT
A 'straw-man argument' Sifty, if I've ever seen one. Whoever said that "nonduality IS the piercing of an illusion?"  That might be how one defines 'realization,' but not 'nonduality' itself. Sifty assumes the premise that there's a bunch of folks who stand by that definition of non-duality, and then tries to tear it down. It's a nonsense. He also insists that "there's a beautiful contradiction in nonduality"...."which is in fact FULL of so many beautiful contradictions." ...It's Sifty himself who has the wonky definition of nonduality. Nonduality is not FULL of anything....rather, nonduality = Not two...Oneness....no separation. The term nonduality is a reference to the Truth, and yes, inherent in nonduality 'teachings' is idea that that Truth gets obscured by the erroneous, imagining that separation is the case. Sifty is the king of the paradox. His entire ontology hinges upon the idea that the Truth is full of paradox. It is so not. If you are seeing paradox...you are still unawake, asleep within the dream. Plain and simple. If you are seeing paradox....you are stuck in a conceptual, mind-based idea about Truth. Of course not! Again. A staw-man. Who has said that "The Self" depends upon thinking about it in a certain way or penetrating an illusion? Indeed, Self depends upon nothing. However, absent the penetration of the illusion of separation...the illusion of the SVP, Self is obscured. Self must be realized, otherwise, limitation...actual separation is taken to be the Truth...and suffering will be the case. What is? The idea that Self is something that depends upon our thinking about it a certain way? That's the illusion we need to penetrate? I'd love for you to come up with one single example Sifty...a quote where someone is actually saying that.  Those mental gymnastics must be exhausting.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2020 6:30:02 GMT
A 'straw-man argument' Sifty, if I've ever seen one. Whoever said that "nonduality IS the piercing of an illusion?" That might be how one defines 'realization,' but not 'nonduality' itself. Sifty assumes the premise that there's a bunch of folks who stand by that definition of non-duality, and then tries to tear it down. It's a nonsense. He also insists that "there's a beautiful contradiction in nonduality"...."which is in fact FULL of so many beautiful contradictions." ...It's Sifty himself who has the wonky definition of nonduality. Nonduality is not FULL of anything....rather, nonduality = Not two...Oneness....no separation. The term nonduality is a reference to the Truth, and yes, inherent in nonduality 'teachings' is idea that that Truth gets obscured by the erroneous, imagining that separation is the case. Sifty is the king of the paradox. His entire ontology hinges upon the idea that the Truth is full of paradox. It is so not. If you are seeing paradox...you are still unawake, asleep within the dream. Plain and simple. If you are seeing paradox....you are stuck in a conceptual, mind-based idea about Truth. Of course not! Again. A staw-man. Who has said that "The Self" depends upon thinking about it in a certain way or penetrating an illusion? Indeed, Self depends upon nothing. However, absent the penetration of the illusion of separation...the illusion of the SVP, Self is obscured. Self must be realized, otherwise, limitation...actual separation is taken to be the Truth...and suffering will be the case. What is? The idea that Self is something that depends upon our thinking about it a certain way? That's the illusion we need to penetrate? I'd love for you to come up with one single example Sifty...a quote where someone is actually saying that. Those mental gymnastics must be exhausting.   |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on May 12, 2020 14:05:25 GMT
Those mental gymnastics must be exhausting. Hehe. That's silly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 12, 2020 20:31:05 GMT
This is a very similar brand of 'mind-elightenment' that ZD espouses when he suggests that blameful, vengeful anger will still arise in SR, it's just that it will be completely accepted as 'what is', thus, it's not a problem.
What Sifty is saying there, is that suffering will still happen, but there will be a mindful judgement applied to it, that denies it as 'not me, not mine,' and denies it by denoting it as non-existent and to have never existed.
At least ZD is espousing 'acceptance' of that which arises, (although IF vengeful anger is arising, clearly there's already been deep judgement...thus, a failure to accept/allow)... whereas Sifty is espousing the application of conceptual ideas and mind games to try to make the arising suffering more palatable to the person.
What he's selling then is nothing more than mental tools to 'mitigate' suffering. A far cry from actual 'freedom.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 2:00:17 GMT
This is a very similar brand of 'mind-elightenment' that ZD espouses when he suggests that blameful, vengeful anger will still arise in SR, it's just that it will be completely accepted as 'what is', thus, it's not a problem. What Sifty is saying there, is that suffering will still happen, but there will be a mindful judgement applied to it, that denies it as 'not me, not mine,' and denies it by denoting it as non-existent and to have never existed. At least ZD is espousing 'acceptance' of that which arises, (although IF vengeful anger is arising, clearly there's already been deep judgement...thus, a failure to accept/allow)... whereas Sifty is espousing the application of conceptual ideas and mind games to try to make the arising suffering more palatable to the person. What he's selling then is nothing more than mental tools to 'mitigate' suffering. A far cry from actual 'freedom.' You can't keep your claws off him can you? You're obsessed with proving that you know the truth! You're not just responding to what people say, you're going out of your way to look for fresh meat. That takes your obsession to another level. You've got to ask yourself, what drives this obsession. Do you ever have any quiet moments when you are just content to be what you are? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 10:59:35 GMT
This is a very similar brand of 'mind-elightenment' that ZD espouses when he suggests that blameful, vengeful anger will still arise in SR, it's just that it will be completely accepted as 'what is', thus, it's not a problem. What Sifty is saying there, is that suffering will still happen, but there will be a mindful judgement applied to it, that denies it as 'not me, not mine,' and denies it by denoting it as non-existent and to have never existed. At least ZD is espousing 'acceptance' of that which arises, (although IF vengeful anger is arising, clearly there's already been deep judgement...thus, a failure to accept/allow)... whereas Sifty is espousing the application of conceptual ideas and mind games to try to make the arising suffering more palatable to the person. What he's selling then is nothing more than mental tools to 'mitigate' suffering. A far cry from actual 'freedom.' You can't keep your claws off him can you? You're obsessed with proving that you know the truth! You're not just responding to what people say, you're going out of your way to look for fresh meat. That takes your obsession to another level. You've got to ask yourself, what drives this obsession. Do you ever have any quiet moments when you are just content to be what you are? With you being Scottish I would've thought that being a crusader for truth and freedom was your birthright. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on May 13, 2020 13:56:35 GMT
This is a very similar brand of 'mind-elightenment' that ZD espouses when he suggests that blameful, vengeful anger will still arise in SR, it's just that it will be completely accepted as 'what is', thus, it's not a problem. What Sifty is saying there, is that suffering will still happen, but there will be a mindful judgement applied to it, that denies it as 'not me, not mine,' and denies it by denoting it as non-existent and to have never existed. At least ZD is espousing 'acceptance' of that which arises, (although IF vengeful anger is arising, clearly there's already been deep judgement...thus, a failure to accept/allow)... whereas Sifty is espousing the application of conceptual ideas and mind games to try to make the arising suffering more palatable to the person. What he's selling then is nothing more than mental tools to 'mitigate' suffering. A far cry from actual 'freedom.' You can't keep your claws off him can you? You're obsessed with proving that you know the truth! You're not just responding to what people say, you're going out of your way to look for fresh meat. That takes your obsession to another level. You've got to ask yourself, what drives this obsession. Do you ever have any quiet moments when you are just content to be what you are?Maybe she understands that doesn't make for lively conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 14, 2020 1:01:36 GMT
You can't keep your claws off him can you? You're obsessed with proving that you know the truth! You're not just responding to what people say, you're going out of your way to look for fresh meat. That takes your obsession to another level. You've got to ask yourself, what drives this obsession. Do you ever have any quiet moments when you are just content to be what you are? What's yer problem? This is a spiritual discussion forum where Truth is the main topic. Sifty presents himself as a teacher of nonduality and the video/post of his that I responded to, he readily posted himself on ST, (another discussion forum!) and it's also posted publicly on his website and on youtube. Good lord man, the way you're talking, "can't keep your claws off him....obsessed..."...you'd think I was hunting him down where he lives and hauling him outta bed when he's sleeping with my talons, and shining a flashlight in his eyes while I interrogate him, or something. Speaking of quiet moments of contentment....looks like YOU could do with a few....again, hope you haven't put that meditation mat away for good...?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 1:11:47 GMT
hope you haven't put that meditation mat away for good...? I put that mat away for good a long time ago. You do know I don't meditate right? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on May 14, 2020 1:15:13 GMT
hope you haven't put that meditation mat away for good...? I put that mat away for good a long time ago. You do know I don't meditate right?Right. I'm saying you should. |
|
That might be how one defines 'realization,' but not 'nonduality' itself. 
