Ted Vollers wrote:
I do not have to try out the idea of no self now. I first did that 40 years ago, long before you were born. It is you who are putting yourself in the place of the man with one idea to whom all the world is a nail because he only has a hammer.
40 years ago? That's a long, long time to leave a belief unchecked. Which wouldn't be much of a problem if beliefs and assumptions were stable.
They aren't though - they grow very quickly out of hand. Religions, political positions, sports fans, all plainly massively corrupted by this - people defending the silliest belief systems which grew out of hand.
40 years of not checking this? If I notice an unchecked assumption growing in my head for even a day I freak out.
The funny part is, this won't even take a significant portion of your time - it's something that, if it's true, it's true right now. Literally one look away, one second away.
If you're comfortable leaving your beliefs grow unchecked, fine. But it's not that - nobody would be, that's insane. It's that you don't even know it's going on.
And not, NOT because you haven't listened to me enough. It has nothing to do with me, this isn't a teaching. It's something to consider - you either see that it's true, or see that it's B.S. Or none of the above.
Just please stop actively warping what I'm saying to let yourself off the hook of engaging with it.
Because I will not claim to be a Hindu or Buddhist metaphysician prepared to debate the concept at the true, historical level of the concept does not mean that I know nothing about it. It is you who are simple mindedly proposing this as a new discovery but which you do not well understand.
I've never once offered this as something to be debated. Ever. It doesn't need to be, it's true, you can look right at it.
It's fine that you can't debate the historical Hindu/Buddhist concepts surrounding this. I can't either, it's unnecessary - I'm not putting this forward as a Buddhist concept, but as a real life one here and now.
I can't debate the science behind gravity, but I can see my keys fall on the ground. I can't debate chaos theory, but I can very well see that there's no pink unicorn in my room right now.
I can very well see that there's no me living life right now.
From the Merriam-Webster On Line dictionary:
Definition of TWIT
1: an act of twitting : taunt
2: a silly annoying person : fool
You are perfectly exemplifying this. You do not say, I have run across this great sounding idea, what do you think about it. You expound it as if you actually knew the concept. Instead of actually engaging in discussion with us, you provided no real content until I challenged you and still inadequately respond. Instead of looking into what I might perhaps know by looking around on the forum, you have been relentlessly hammering away with your only and partial understanding. Your only response to me has been to act as if I had no concept of what you are talking about and was simply being an obstructionist unwilling to look at your 'grand idea'. Not that I have the objections that I have actually put forwards. You might profitably read this article on WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_ ... chology%29
I'm not saying "What do you think about it" for a very specific reason. That prompts people to look at it as a concept to be debated, or agreed with, or ignored.
This doesn't work like that, it just doesn't work on the level of conceptualization, but pattern recognition. It's the difference between debating what's in a treasure chest, and opening it up too look inside - looking actually stores the empirical data of inside the box in your brain, as a memory. It's much stronger than a debate.
This isn't a "great sounding idea" - it's an aspect of reality that you can actually look at, that permanently frees the organism from having to live as a slave to it's self-image. That's not really something you can debate without first testing it for yourself.
I approached you guys saying "I know about this cool thigh which eases human dysfunction. Here it is - check if it's true." Right in the first post - which includes enough content to do it, but I understand if it could use clarifying.
Nobody's asked me how to look though - you're too busy attacking this on a conceptual level to be curious enough to do so. Which, I suppose, is both of our loss - I really want you guys to see this.
I ask you again, do you wish to remain here as a regular member as opposed to stay thinking of yourself clearly as a budding guru?
If you really think I'm just here to flail my massive intellect (hah) and gather worshipers, go ahead.
If you can really lie to yourself on that extreme level, without any evidence backing it up, I can't stop you. Go on, defend your forum from my evil ways.
I do not propose to let the latter continue in opposition to the purpose of this board which I consider you to be in violation of.
This is something which massively increased my personal growth using something I read in Tom's book.
Once again: This is something which massively increased my personal growth using something I read in Tom's book.
In what sense does that violate the purpose of this board?