Mistaking the Rope for a Snake (hot takes?)

[IllusiveOwl]

I have noticed that many Hindu religions and philosophy boil down to the same conclusion, with Buddhism being the more blunt explination of it. Jnana (Jannism) & Sat Yogas, the Upanishads, the Baghivad Gita, the Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharashi, most of the things Ram Dass rambles about... so many gurus and sages from that continent draw their power from the same conclusion, anyone who has done mild research into nonduality would understand the famous metaphor "Mistaking a Rope for a Snake", the divine dance of Leela, etc.

So many people who "realize" this truth say it and spout about it, but they act as though entranced in some kind of drug-induced high. Have they understood it without being ready? Is the truth that the Hindu philosophies trying to get across incorrect? Is it a fount to some and a curse to the unworthy?

I am wondering if any of you that are versed in this line of thinking got any tangible results or powers from putting on the non-duality-goggles, because that looks like a big tangle of madness.

 

[pixel_fortune]

boil down to the same conclusion,

so many gurus and sages from that continent draw their power from the same conclusion

So many people who "realize" this truth

Have they understood it without being ready?

What's the conclusion/truth you're referring to?

("Mistaking a Rope for a Snake" just means "don't jump at shadows" yeah?)

That said i will say that most of the important spiritual and personal realisations I've had would sound, spoken out loud, like obvious cliches.

There are very few secret truths anymore - development consists of finally internalising a message you probably first heard when you were 14. I would sound stoned if i tried to describe how important this internalisation is: "irritations aren't obstacles in the way of my work, they ARE my work - that's what the Stoics meant by the obstacle is the way. But like, i GET IT now."

I don't actually bother sharing these realisations because i know i can only transmit the ideas, which aren't new, not the internal acceptance and integration of the ideas.

Tl;dr spouting obvious platitudes like they're profound can actually be exactly what serious and meaningful development looks like.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

What's the conclusion/truth you're referring to?

("Mistaking a Rope for a Snake" just means "don't jump at shadows" yeah?)

That said i will say that most of the important spiritual and personal realisations I've had would sound, spoken out loud, like obvious cliches.

There are very few secret truths anymore - development consists of finally internalising a message you probably first heard when you were 14. I would sound stoned if i tried to describe how important this internalisation is: "irritations aren't obstacles in the way of my work, they ARE my work - that's what the Stoics meant by the obstacle is the way. But like, i GET IT now."

I don't actually bother sharing these realisations because i know i can only transmit the ideas, which aren't new, not the internal acceptance and integration of the ideas.

Tl;dr spouting obvious platitudes like they're profound can actually be exactly what serious and meaningful development looks like.

The reason I did not want to share what the conclusion was is because of the very thing you were talking about, with it just being said it sounds topical and I fear I wouldn't be able to give it the gravity and seriousness that it deserves.

"Mistaking the Rope for a Snake" has to do with the Hindu metaphysics of dream-reality (the dance of Leela) and is applied to all existence. The Mahyana Buddhists say in the "Lankavatara Sutra (My favorite, it's as dense and hard to read as Simulacra & Simulation) that there is no such thing as death, and no such thing as birth. The Rope is what is happening at this very moment objectively, the Snake is our mental constructs about it, including birth, life, decay, and death, but also identity, possession, essentially anything you think or use words to describe.

This is of course just my understanding, I am not all-knowing or omniscient, just a nerd trying to juggle all these metaphysics. That's a big reason why I am hoping some of you can weigh in

Post automatically merged: May 8, 2024

there is no such thing as death, and no such thing as birth

After a little meditation, I thought of another way to express this in a more digestible and less-blunt way:

In the movie The Matrix, everything that happens in the cyber world is fluctuations of code, blackness and green symbols, yet programs are sentient within it. When a program 'dies', objectively there is no death, just code fracturing in an ocean of code.

 

[Taudefindi]

When a program 'dies', objectively there is no death, just code fracturing in an ocean of code.

Change it's existence from a compact being into an immaterial consciousness.
From the ocean, to a drop of rain, back to the ocean.

 

[Xenophon]

I have noticed that many Hindu religions and philosophy boil down to the same conclusion, with Buddhism being the more blunt explination of it. Jnana (Jannism) & Sat Yogas, the Upanishads, the Baghivad Gita, the Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharashi, most of the things Ram Dass rambles about... so many gurus and sages from that continent draw their power from the same conclusion, anyone who has done mild research into nonduality would understand the famous metaphor "Mistaking a Rope for a Snake", the divine dance of Leela, etc.

So many people who "realize" this truth say it and spout about it, but they act as though entranced in some kind of drug-induced high. Have they understood it without being ready? Is the truth that the Hindu philosophies trying to get across incorrect? Is it a fount to some and a curse to the unworthy?

I am wondering if any of you that are versed in this line of thinking got any tangible results or powers from putting on the non-duality-goggles, because that looks like a big tangle of madness.

I suppose one practical benefit would be facing extreme situations with relative aplomb. Von Ungern-Sternberg was a (highly-idiosyncratic) Buddhist. His ideologically hostile executioners noted that he went off to the firing squad with the air of a man excusing himself to go wash his hands, "I will be back presently." Here, though, the benefit is social and psychological, not magickal per se.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

Change it's existence from a compact being into an immaterial consciousness.
From the ocean, to a drop of rain, back to the ocean.

Ah, but throughout that whole process, it is still the one objective ocean, the only thing that is changing in the metaphor you've given is subjective perspective! The ocean Mistaking itself as a small part of itself, a knot in itself, an illusion like a snake metaphysically imposed onto a rope.

Post automatically merged: May 9, 2024

I suppose one practical benefit would be facing extreme situations with relative aplomb. Von Ungern-Sternberg was a (highly-idiosyncratic) Buddhist. His ideologically hostile executioners noted that he went off to the firing squad with the air of a man excusing himself to go wash his hands, "I will be back presently." Here, though, the benefit is social and psychological, not magickal per se.

I see what you mean with aplomb, it makes life easier and less stressful if you just see it as a continuous string of dreams with no real stakes.

Would you see any possible way of integrating this philosophy with Magic, or magical operations? From what I've seen people who stake their claim in this philosophy claim abilities like Astral projection, levitation, telekinesis, telepathy, all that stuff, but don't claim to be magical in thought or action.

 

[pixel_fortune]

The reason I did not want to share what the conclusion was

Fair enough, but I can't give an opinion on something if I don't know what it is!

 

[IllusiveOwl]

Fair enough, but I can't give an opinion on something if I don't know what it is!

I was seeking for people who are already versed in this Indian line of thinking:

I am wondering if any of you that are versed in this line of thinking