|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 15:00:06 GMT -5
Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. Snake.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 15:04:48 GMT -5
Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. Snake. I can't help but think that you are just trolling now B. Do you see it as something other than trolling?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 15:15:27 GMT -5
There is no truth, which of course is what I mean when I say nothing is ultimately true. But you don't know with certainty that there is no solid foundation, because you have become comfy with not having certainty. OTOH, I do have such certainty because I realize there is no solid foundation. How many times have you heard me say everything collapses into a little greasy spot? Does that sound like a solid foundation to you? Infinite potential is the case now and always. While I'm certain of that, for you it is apparently just another story. Realization is not a story. A realization exposes an illusion, it doesn't give you new ideas to play with. My God, neither of you even knows what a realization is. That explains much. Yes, you like your stories, just like Andrew, and you justify them by saying anything is possible, as though the universe is just waiting to hear your personal story so that it can play along. Part of what you mean when you say that nothing is 'ultimately true' is that some things are 'contextually true'. Therefore there is a belief yet to be questioned that 'there is context'. So you collapse everything down to a greasy spot while at the same time holding a conclusion to be true, which you would say is ''contextually true''. This fortification of the fortress makes it a very impenetrable fortress. There is very much a solid foundation. Is it necessarily true that there is no truth? Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no truth? I am not conclusively saying there is no truth, I leave the door open for the possibility that there is truth. That's why I might say that nothing is provably true, even this. The door is left open and the mind has no peg at all to hang its hat on. Infinite possibility paradoxically includes the possibility of no possibility.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 15:16:47 GMT -5
Yes, that's it. Thanks for your 'take' Figgy, I think you have a great talent for succinctly and lucidly explaining the ins and outs of all this spiritual stuff. And to be clear, E, I also think you have wonderful insight...there's just this one incy wincy little problem.....! Yeah, it doesn't agree with yours. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 12, 2012 15:22:31 GMT -5
I can't help but think that you are just trolling now B. Do you see it as something other than trolling? Doesn't matter how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 15:26:02 GMT -5
Is it necessarily true that there is no truth? Can you prove beyond all doubt that there is no truth? I am not conclusively saying there is no truth, I leave the door open for the possibility that there is truth. That's why I might say that nothing is provably true, even this. The door is left open and the mind has no peg at all to hang its hat on. No. You're perpetually stuck at level 1.0 mind where doubt is inevitable and proof is impossible. You are on the path of ambiguous, paradoxical confusion, and you seem proud of it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 15:30:51 GMT -5
No. You're perpetually stuck at level 1.0 mind where doubt is inevitable and proof is impossible. You are on the path of ambiguous, paradoxical confusion, and you seem proud of it. Again, I would not conclusively say that proof is impossible or that doubt is inevitable. My path is more one of 'possibility' than it is paradox and ambiguity, though being at ease with paradox and ambiguity is important in order to transcend the duality of truth/falsity. This transcending doesn't happen by holding 2 core beliefs to be true in place.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Oct 12, 2012 15:31:53 GMT -5
At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. You do not know this for sure. And just to state this shows your own anchor point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' Same could be said for anyone commenting on anything. Even yourself and Andrew. AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. I rez with that but find it ironic that you put this after the previous part. There are times when I have raised similar questions about E and my perception of rigidity from him. But I encourage you to turn that spotlight on yourself as you may find you too are rigid on certain topics (I.e. E and your story about him)(with no fault given as we all are rigid because of our egoic/mind programming (for example: the starving mother and son is beautiful)). There's my story for now. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 16:36:50 GMT -5
You are on the path of ambiguous, paradoxical confusion, and you seem proud of it. Again, I would not conclusively say that proof is impossible or that doubt is inevitable. My path is more one of 'possibility' than it is paradox and ambiguity, though being at ease with paradox and ambiguity is important in order to transcend the duality of truth/falsity. This transcending doesn't happen by holding 2 core beliefs to be true in place. Again, I don't hold 2 core beliefs to be true. To say there is true/false in a given context just means that in the mental construct of a particular context, some things are true and some are false, but nothing is ultimately true. The mental construct has no fundamental reality, but it forms an experience nonetheless, and if you want to operate within that dreamscape with some semblance of integrity, you have to admit that such experiences do in fact occur. (which you have) You have to admit that currently on planet Earth, gravity is a fact, and currently, humans can't flap their arms and fly. This doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Keep flapping and you may succeed because infinite potential is still the case. No solid foundation has been created anywhere, but also, no power of manifestation of infinite potential has been personally bestowed upon you because the dream is not a personal one. If you want to 'transcend' the 'truth' of gravity, you may have to study with a good Yogi for 30 years, but my guess is you won't be a happy yogi flyer, just a guy who can do some cool tricks.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 16:45:47 GMT -5
At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. You do not know this for sure. And just to state this shows your own anchor point. Same could be said for anyone commenting on anything. Even yourself and Andrew. AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. I rez with that but find it ironic that you put this after the previous part. There are times when I have raised similar questions about E and my perception of rigidity from him. But I encourage you to turn that spotlight on yourself as you may find you too are rigid on certain topics (I.e. E and your story about him)(with no fault given as we all are rigid because of our egoic/mind programming (for example: the starving mother and son is beautiful)). There's my story for now. Haha. Do you also see ZD as rigid and inflexible because he rarely changes his point of view on things? Do you see Niz and Ramana as inflexible because they keep saying the same things over and over. I'm not comparing myself to anyone, just suggesting that realization is not a perspective or opinion, and therefore doesn't change with the wind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 16:59:20 GMT -5
Again, I would not conclusively say that proof is impossible or that doubt is inevitable. My path is more one of 'possibility' than it is paradox and ambiguity, though being at ease with paradox and ambiguity is important in order to transcend the duality of truth/falsity. This transcending doesn't happen by holding 2 core beliefs to be true in place. Again, I don't hold 2 core beliefs to be true. To say there is true/false in a given context just means that in the mental construct of a particular context, some things are true and some are false, but nothing is ultimately true. The mental construct has no fundamental reality, but it forms an experience nonetheless, and if you want to operate within that dreamscape with some semblance of integrity, you have to admit that such experiences do in fact occur. (which you have) You have to admit that currently on planet Earth, gravity is a fact, and currently, humans can't flap their arms and fly. This doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Keep flapping and you may succeed because infinite potential is still the case. No solid foundation has been created anywhere, but also, no power of manifestation of infinite potential has been personally bestowed upon you because the dream is not a personal one. If you want to 'transcend' the 'truth' of gravity, you may have to study with a good Yogi for 30 years, but my guess is you won't be a happy yogi flyer, just a guy who can do some cool tricks. Yes I engage with the duality of truth/falsity, however I don't START from the belief that its true that 'there is context'. This is what you do. You say.... Its contextually true that nothing is ultimately true Its contextually true that its all imaginary Its contextually true that there is context! Its contextually true that there is gravity. Its contextually true that grass is green. In each of these examples, there is a presupposition being held to be true that 'there is context''. So you go through your day observing 'what's true', all the while holding 'there is context' to be true, and then justifying this belief by saying that its contextually true that nothing is ultimately true. Notice that the belief that ''there is context'' is always present. This is not coming empty E-man, this is coming full. You are starting FROM a belief. You are starting from 'the known', not 'the unknown'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 18:11:31 GMT -5
Again, I don't hold 2 core beliefs to be true. To say there is true/false in a given context just means that in the mental construct of a particular context, some things are true and some are false, but nothing is ultimately true. The mental construct has no fundamental reality, but it forms an experience nonetheless, and if you want to operate within that dreamscape with some semblance of integrity, you have to admit that such experiences do in fact occur. (which you have) You have to admit that currently on planet Earth, gravity is a fact, and currently, humans can't flap their arms and fly. This doesn't mean it always has to be that way. Keep flapping and you may succeed because infinite potential is still the case. No solid foundation has been created anywhere, but also, no power of manifestation of infinite potential has been personally bestowed upon you because the dream is not a personal one. If you want to 'transcend' the 'truth' of gravity, you may have to study with a good Yogi for 30 years, but my guess is you won't be a happy yogi flyer, just a guy who can do some cool tricks. Yes I engage with the duality of truth/falsity, however I don't START from the belief that its true that 'there is context'. This is what you do. You say.... Its contextually true that nothing is ultimately true Its contextually true that its all imaginary Its contextually true that there is context! Its contextually true that there is gravity. Its contextually true that grass is green. In each of these examples, there is a presupposition being held to be true that 'there is context''. So you go through your day observing 'what's true', all the while holding 'there is context' to be true, and then justifying this belief by saying that its contextually true that nothing is ultimately true. Notice that the belief that ''there is context'' is always present. This is not coming empty E-man, this is coming full. You are starting FROM a belief. You are starting from 'the known', not 'the unknown'. No, I'm not starting with some belief. You're not listening.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2012 22:09:53 GMT -5
Well, here I indulge in repetition, but, as I conceded to enigma, while a mind that realizes that "no thought is ultimately true" implies that "no thought is ultimately tue" is also, ultimately false ... while that mind might spin in confusion there's another possible outcome. It is, as he suggested, related to "realization" of a sort. I'm not sure I see an backpeddling following the conclusion that 'no thought is ultimately true', I think probably what happened is that the conclusion was formed out of a presupposition/belief that was already in place i.e. that there are relative or contextual truths ( that 'there is context'). From that position of believing that 'there is context', a conclusion has then been drawn that says...'Although there are contextual/relative truths, no thought is ultimately true'. Its the only reason why the word 'ultimately' would be in the statement, it is used to form a comparison, which the mind says 'hooray' to, because where there is comparison, there is duality. Yeah, ok, now I see what you mean here. So fine, lose the word "ultimately" and it boils down to "no thought is true" and then the self-referential paradox emerges from the statement all the more quickly and clearly. There's no way to either believe or disbelieve the statement and maintain logical consistency. Thats fine ... it's the difference between turning your back on physics (with the qualifier "ultimately") or going a step further and also turning your back on mathematics (without it). Enigma once told me that he didn't follow me in this thread, and in thinking about how best to re-convey it, I came to this conclusion ... translated between all four threads, the thought I didn't enunciate then was that it is in the conception of the circle itself where the mathematician errs. ie: the first cut is the deepest. I do agree that the mind is a useful tool, and engaging with the duality of truth/falsity is part of our lives, but I see the idea of 'relative truths' or 'contextual truths' as a contradiction in terms, a misnomer even. I can't find a context in which I would say that something is relatively or contextually true, I do speak of something being true, and I do speak of relativity/context, but I wouldn't say something is 'relatively/contextually true'. Well, and forgive me if you've already stated this in the rest of the thread, but this seems to imply that you subscribe to some sort of "ultimate truth"... ... please refine my understanding of what you're saying if this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by figgy on Oct 12, 2012 23:07:34 GMT -5
But you don't know with certainty that there is no solid foundation, because you have become comfy with not having certainty. OTOH, I do have such certainty because I realize there is no solid foundation. IN my experience, "knowing with certainty" is the equivalent of 'attaching to' a particular idea. So, no, I don't know with certainty that 'there is no solid foundation', is true. It's just what I'm perceiving at present, and mostly, these days. I'm open to the possibility that I might or could see things another way. Right now, in THIS moment, I'm not attached to any particular truth. Is having certainty an important thing? I cannot see why it would be. Certainty anchors us to a particular way of experiencing. And if we're VERY certain, there is stagnation. If we are experiencing a certain way of experience or a certain kind of experience that is very enjoyable, then yes, we may find it important to continue with that kind of certainty (but in that knowing, it wouldn't really be certainty about the truth of any particular idea,but rather a conscious focus upon that idea for the fact that we understand the kind of experience it will beget)... all the certainty is doing is providing the path to the kind of experience we are seeking. It's still 'a spot'....however greasy it may be. If you are holding it in your mind as an idea of where you 'should' be....then it's something you are anchoring to. Which, in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, however, if you can't see it, then it has the propensity to bite you in the bum..or limit your experience, (at some point). Within any given moment, it might feel like certainty, but there's no NEED involved..no compulsion to delineate anything in particular as being 'absolutely for sure' above anything else. (BTW....not saying that it is this way for you.....just trying to clarify). It all depends on how expansive the perspective is. From a place of perceiving illusion, I absolutely have experienced 'realization.' I have also moved beyond that to see that even that, is a story...to see that, so long as experience continues, there will always be a story. The universe is indeed just waiting to 'play along.' But there is no NEED to justify the stories. AT this juncture, the stories just are. And that has long ago been accepted as part and parcel of experience. WE cannot escape the stories, so the only thing left to do is to make peace with them, and utilize them to have the kind of experience that we prefer.
|
|
|
Post by figgy on Oct 12, 2012 23:27:36 GMT -5
You do not know this for sure. And just to state this shows your own anchor point. Yes. This is indeed a current anchor point of mine. However, I see it for what it is. A 'boundary' that creates a certain kind of experience. AS I am very pleased with the type of experience that this boundary helps to provide, I'll continue to engage with it. If at any point I prefer a different type of experience, I'm free to revisit this anchor point and re-asses it. All 'anchor points' are really just 'current stories.' Sure. To hold an opinion on anything is to engage somewhat with a story. The only question is; how tenaciously are we clinging to that story as being 'true'? How strong is our NEED to know it is true? If we're hanging on tightly, we will have trouble seeing past it. It's all about the level of flexibility to move and flow from one perspective or boundary of seeing to another. . Why? Yes. I have no illusions about E being responsible for my responses to him. If there's ever an emotional or visceral response on my part following a post from him or anyone else, it's always an invitation to have a look at the story I'm painting...what kind of brush I'm using...what color my palette.... (hehe...what can I say...I'm an artist )
|
|