Daniel

Sounds like denial to me...

So not simultaneity, more like auto-pilot? A robotic, thoughtless, autonomous reaction like blinking?

If clairty for anything comes from understanding "what it is" + "what it is not", then, "clarity" of "clarity" itself is produced in the same manner. For this specific case "clarity" is easiest to define via "what it is not" which are distortions. Neti-neti will eventually produce a clarity of clarity. From the scientology perspective, if I understand, clarity means "non-reactive" emotionally. Ahhhhhh. Thank you very kindly. Got it. Sure. I understand the dilemma. Does "non-dual" philosophy take a position on this? Is "non-dual" philosophy a general category for discussions about this specific dilemma without taking a position on it?

Speaking for myself, "calm" comes from the heart, not the mind. And while both are part of the psyche, they operate in different ways.

Thank you Bindi.

It happens. Both being called ignorant and below, and also I can actually be ignorant and below. No problem. I don't drink and I still botched sat-chit-ananda. I hadn't. But, denial is not an enemy it's a tool. Hopefully I included some version of that in my posts here... ~scrolling up to see~ Whew, yes, I included it. "Denial is not all bad". Hee. Thanks. That's a tiny bit embarrassing. But I should be able to remember it better now. Maybe tomorrow or the next day, you'll come back and elaborate further on what I wrote "clarity = what it is + what it isn't = dual".

Is this how you perceive conversations with me? If so, please be honest and say so.

This also makes perfect sense to me. Simultaneity is, imo, one of the most important concepts for clear awareness of reality. When I consider simultaneity, it is inherently dual. If it is non-dual, it cannot be simultaneous. If the term "non-dual" is intended to mean simultaneity, that resolves the philosophical contradiction. It's difficult for me to accept this ( simultaneity) as the intention of non-dual philosophy from either Hinduism nor Buddhism based on what I have seen of their scripture and what their adherents are saying. The Hindu says "transactional reality" is ignorance. The Buddhist denies inherent reality of attributes. If non-duality is 'simultaneity' then both "transactional reality" and the "inherent reality of attributes" are included in the simultaneous (non-dual) awareness.

Specifically in this case "it" is the "2 truths". In general "it" is the entire "non-dual" philosophy. {Paraphrasing} "From the non-dual / enlightened perspective I have realized all are one, none are supreme or ideal, ... But you are ignorant and far below ... You cannot understand. Your religion is ignorant and far below. It doesn't understand. Remember all are one. That is the ideal, all others are ignorant and far below." Sure. These are generalizations from multiple conversations with multiple people. That makes perfect sense to me. It's inherently dual. Each clearly seeing phenomena means seeing what it is and what it is not. "What it is" + "What it is not" = dual. Agreed. And yet that's what seems to happen. The denial is carried implicitly in the term "non-dual". It denies "dual". Then this denial produces the contradictions. Example: two-truths is non-dual. No, definitely not the same. But I cannot comment on what individual Buddhists experience in their meditative practice. Maybe it is a form of "sit-chat-ananda". I don't know.

I'm serious. I think it's a misnomer to call it non-dual. To borrow a word used in another thread recently, I've observed non-dualists often get "tangled" in contradictions when rigidly and literally applying this idea of "non-duality". It's not just contradictions in their argumentation and preachng that becomes contradictory, but, also their behavior. Their stated dharma deviates from the dharma they actually practice. Much of this is explained by realizing that "non-dual" is actually "dual", but that the "duality" is being actively denied. This denial is what is producing the deviation between the stated dharma and the dharma which is practiced. The denial also produces the contradictions in their argumentation and preaching. But, denial is not all bad. Just like everything, it has its proper time / place / context where it is healthy and useful. When it is out of context, deviations and contradictions are produced. In a meditative practice, denial is probably a useful method for attaining the desired "emptiness" or "sit-chat-ananda" ( depending on what the adherent is seeking ). Perhaps "denial" is not the best word, but, hopefully you understand what I mean. Taking that denial beyond the meditative practice seems to cause problems. There's several reasons why a person would want to extend/retain the meditative feeling and experience beyond the more formal meditative practice. I think that's a primary motive for misappropriating the "denial" of "duality" in the form of the misnomer: "non-duality".

If there is an emergency in your area do you have a plan? For me, in my area, the most likely emergency event is a massive earthquake which will disrupt water supply, natural gas, gasoline, electricity and access to food. We are prepared for for 3 weeks of off the grid survival in case that occurs. I would recommend making a plan for yourself and your family first. What are the risks of catastrophe in your local area? Make a plan so that you are prepared in case that happens. After that consider other areas and perhaps a global trend.

I haven't read through the particular question you're asking about, but, in general, yes. I've noticed significant contradictions in Buddhism. Edit to add: perhaps it's good to be prepared for the inevitable "It can't be understood by you, because you're not enlightened."

Now I feel guilty about the guilty feelings... ~runs away~

Don't worry. Be informed and be prepared. Preparedness prevents

Private Message sent.

This might get some snickers and eye-rolls, but, I'll share it anyway. I think there is a "dark force" which desires to unmake everything and nullify reality. I think it's everyone's responsibility to stop that from happening. I try not to take it too seriously, even though I have strong feelings about it. What do I to move towards it? It's less about moving towards it, and more about preventing a full-scale collapse.

It looks like there are articles from various communities by searching google: "pineal gland prophecy"

Never heard of her, but she's definitely ... impressive.

Nope. But even if it was, it's verboten. So if there is a connection, it's polemic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polemic ( If you're watching YouTube atheists and critics, they usually get this one wrong )

If only it was limited to worship. It starts with the worship, then they have a bit too much wine and start tipping them. That's certainly a capital offense. Do you have that where you are? Cow tipping?

Exodus 12:38 וגם־ערב רב עלה אתם וצאן ובקר מקנה כבד מאד׃ And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, and very many cattle. Numbers 11:4 והאספסף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וישבו ויבכו גם בני ישראל ויאמרו מי יאכלנו בשר׃ And the mixed multitude that was among them had a strong craving; and the people of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us meat to eat? According to the story, there was a group of non-Israelites ( not from the House of Jacob ) tagging along. Probably egyptian, but also others. Many flocked to egypt during the great famine. Acording to the story, they DID have a stong inflluence on the House of Jacob. This is a recurring theme. Especially in the middle/late chapters of Ezekiel.

It's common cross culture and in geographically distant people. Not all of them, only 3000. The story describes a people from the idolatry of egypt. And the idol worship was intended to be prohibitted. Same with egypt... Nope. Not at all. Not even close. I've interacted with others who have tried to make this connnection and it's always a fail. Although it does make sense that wise people come up with similar ideas. I think there are details here that are good to point out and consider. 1) It's not that there is no evidence. There is some evidence, but nothing conclusive. A million or more people? No evidence of that. 2) When people use the phrase "was written during the babylonian exile" it's not true that most scholars agree to this if it is understood literally. Almost no one agrees that that during the babylonian exile the stories were "written" as if there was a team of writers sitting at a table constructing a story and writing it in a scroll. If any scholars agree to that, it is the extreme fringe minority. The concensus is that there are 2 voices, 2 styles of writing, in the Torah. One is "priestly", one is "non-priestly". The 4 source documentary hypothesis has been abandoned by almost everyone excluding scholars and Rabbis attached to Reform Judaism where it has been preached from the pulpit and indoctrinated into their children for almost 100 years. There are differing opinions about how these two sources became one unified Torah, but, the end result which was **complied** and formalized during the babylonian exile is a "literary unity" with a consistent and coherent message of a single God, not multiple Gods as the Reform Movement and other critics choose to super impose onto it. Those of us in the orthodox community knew the DH with its multiple Gods and multiple authors was a weak theory dead on arrival. But it was nice to recieve vindication and validation of this in 2011, then the DH was officially disproven. Below are links describing this. Of specfic interest for those who would like to understand what happened in 2011 is the JSTOR article proving there are 2 and only 2 "voices" / "writing styles" in the Torah. Reading the full article is possible with a free google account. If anyone is having trouble logging in to JSTOR to read it, please let me know. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1342.2015.2754 <--- Computer analysis disproving the 4 source Documentary Hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_Torah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_Torah#Collapse_of_the_documentary_consensus From the above: "The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, likely completed during the Persian period (539-333 BCE)." "COMPLETED during the Persion period." "COMPLETED" = "Compiled, maybe editted, but NOT WRITTEN, NOT COMPOSED, NOT CONCEIVED. That happened earlier. The Persion period is Terminus Ante Quem, TAQ, the absolute latest beginning." Here's archeological evidence demonstrating this. The stories, and ideas predated the Persion period. The temple is most convincing, especially the altar and the sacrifices match descriptions in the Torah. The temple dates to around 900BCE, the ideas predate it. Likely greatly predate it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Arad#Israelite_temple https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Arad#Israelite_fort_ostraca https://www.jstor.org/stable/3211023

When you use the phrase "god of this world" is that coming from a christian background and context? What does "proceed further" mean to you? It would be helpful to know what you envision as "good progress". "Good times, bad times...You know I've had my share." - Led Zeppelin

Much love and peace to you as well.