|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 15, 2012 17:45:46 GMT -5
Enigma, Andrew, If your words are taken simply at face value, it appears that at the core of many of your back-and-forths is a challenge to the others level of realization or understanding or *whatever*. And no, I am not, with absolute certainty, I am not snidely implying that the face value of the words is the full value. I'm not implying that either of you are actually motivated by that kind of challenge. But if one just reads the words, that's what one will find. I think you are right, my experience when talking to Enigma is often of challenging his level of realization, I don't do it because I want to see Enigma humiliated or 'brought down' though. Sure, my experience as well. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2012 17:50:43 GMT -5
Its important that I didn't say the word 'conflict' because the experience is not of conflict. Again, the reason for this absence of conflict is because ideas are not attached to, they are not carried forward on a moment by moment basis. So we can say one thing one moment (like 'paths are an illusion') and then say another thing another moment (like 'the path to Self-Realization is to focus on the sense of 'I am'). To an observer that is tracking, it looks like the one that is pointing is contradicting themselves (and they are really) but to the 'one' that is not attached, there is no experience of conflict because the experience is of alignment to the present moment. I would say that I experience some slight sense of contradiction when I point to something that cannot be pointed to (which is essentially the core contradiction of the non-dual model), but I am very at ease with this slight sense of contradiction, it is just another appearance, not so very different to the appearance of absolute certainty. The idea of 'gateless gate' is classic, and your resistance to being 'in contradiction' suggests to me that you have not passed through, because an aspect of passing through is being at ease with contradiction, paradox and dichotomy. I'm really not sure that you understand this though. You see, our old conditioned beliefs are false, fundamentally because they proclaim to be the whole story, when in actuality, they are really only half the story. Many seekers turn to non-duality and reject conditioned beliefs as false, and accept non-dual understandings as true. Basically, its the same trap....half the story is embraced as being the whole truth, but this time its the non-dual stories. I see you doing this a lot of the time. I have no resistance to being in contradiction. It simply informs me that there is mental confusion that calls for clarity. There's a time for confusion to percolate, and a time for clarity. That clarity is not about becoming comfy with confusion. To suggest that there is no experience of conflict because yer at ease with contradiction, is not clarity. It's more confusion. The clarity that you are speaking of here is a clarity only of the mind. So the moment you perceive yourself to be in contradiction, you immediately reach for another truth (or if you prefer, your mind reaches for another truth), and you are so quick to do it, your mind is so practiced, that you wouldn't experience it as resistance to being in contradiction. You have mastered mind-clarity, the art of never experiencing contradiction (let alone confusion) and the problem is, that not being okay just to be 'in the contradiction', means that you cannot allow yourself to reside in the unknown. Clarity of the mind is not the goal, the goal is to Realize that we fundamentally are the Clarity that we seek, and this Realizing is not the same as 'realizing what something is or isn't'. It is not correct to associate contradiction directly with conflict. I am at ease with the sense of contradiction, I am surrendered to the contradiction as it arises, I barely even notice it and if anything its actually kinda funny. As with all other appearances, it passes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 15, 2012 18:43:45 GMT -5
I have no resistance to being in contradiction. It simply informs me that there is mental confusion that calls for clarity. There's a time for confusion to percolate, and a time for clarity. That clarity is not about becoming comfy with confusion. To suggest that there is no experience of conflict because yer at ease with contradiction, is not clarity. It's more confusion. The clarity that you are speaking of here is a clarity only of the mind. So the moment you perceive yourself to be in contradiction, you immediately reach for another truth (or if you prefer, your mind reaches for another truth), and you are so quick to do it, your mind is so practiced, that you wouldn't experience it as resistance to being in contradiction. You have mastered mind-clarity, the art of never experiencing contradiction (let alone confusion) and the problem is, that not being okay just to be 'in the contradiction', means that you cannot allow yourself to reside in the unknown. Clarity of the mind is not the goal, the goal is to Realize that we fundamentally are the Clarity that we seek, and this Realizing is not the same as 'realizing what something is or isn't'. It is not correct to associate contradiction directly with conflict. I am at ease with the sense of contradiction, I am surrendered to the contradiction as it arises, I barely even notice it and if anything its actually kinda funny. As with all other appearances, it passes. Nice story. I'll assume it's your story. You don't transcend mind by crafting the right mind state. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 15, 2012 19:03:34 GMT -5
The clarity that you are speaking of here is a clarity only of the mind. So the moment you perceive yourself to be in contradiction, you immediately reach for another truth (or if you prefer, your mind reaches for another truth), and you are so quick to do it, your mind is so practiced, that you wouldn't experience it as resistance to being in contradiction. You have mastered mind-clarity, the art of never experiencing contradiction (let alone confusion) and the problem is, that not being okay just to be 'in the contradiction', means that you cannot allow yourself to reside in the unknown. Clarity of the mind is not the goal, the goal is to Realize that we fundamentally are the Clarity that we seek, and this Realizing is not the same as 'realizing what something is or isn't'. It is not correct to associate contradiction directly with conflict. I am at ease with the sense of contradiction, I am surrendered to the contradiction as it arises, I barely even notice it and if anything its actually kinda funny. As with all other appearances, it passes. Nice story. I'll assume it's your story. You don't transcend mind by crafting the right mind state. Well, that's something we can agree on. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 15, 2012 19:37:30 GMT -5
I think you are right, my experience when talking to Enigma is often of challenging his level of realization, I don't do it because I want to see Enigma humiliated or 'brought down' though. Sure, my experience as well. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. No problem whatsoever. It's just one of those amusing self-negating self-references ... now what appears in the text is a voice actually answering that challenge and in the very fact of answer the challenge (about the level of *whatever*) is validated --- if it's something that has to be defended then it's not anything worth defending. To be clear, this is just what's painted on the facade, it doesn't say anything about what's behind the logins. Kindly excuse another kiss from the bliss-bunny when I say that what comes through about both of you from putting all of these conversations into the greater context of the rest of the words you source onto the forum is that these voices are worth listening to. But to relate it back to the OP, there is this cycle here, this repeated death and re-birth where one places the other among the dead who then climbs out of the grave in the next post or thread. The conversations, if not read carefully, seem to cycle and repeat themselves. If one looks closely enough though, one sees the change over time. No two conversations are ever exactly the same, but maybe what's more important is where they're going as a whole. Man, that would apparently take quite a bit of work to map that one out. ;D (at least for this humble seeker) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 16, 2012 3:59:54 GMT -5
Sure, my experience as well. I'm not sure what the problem is with that. No problem whatsoever. It's just one of those amusing self-negating self-references ... now what appears in the text is a voice actually answering that challenge and in the very fact of answer the challenge (about the level of *whatever*) is validated --- if it's something that has to be defended then it's not anything worth defending. To be clear, this is just what's painted on the facade, it doesn't say anything about what's behind the logins. Kindly excuse another kiss from the bliss-bunny when I say that what comes through about both of you from putting all of these conversations into the greater context of the rest of the words you source onto the forum is that these voices are worth listening to. But to relate it back to the OP, there is this cycle here, this repeated death and re-birth where one places the other among the dead who then climbs out of the grave in the next post or thread. The conversations, if not read carefully, seem to cycle and repeat themselves. If one looks closely enough though, one sees the change over time. No two conversations are ever exactly the same, but maybe what's more important is where they're going as a whole. Man, that would apparently take quite a bit of work to map that one out. ;D (at least for this humble seeker)Yes. I thought about this the other day. If I look back over the last year, there seems to have been many different phases, and amidst all the arguing and challenges, I think there has been an overall sort of 'tumbling forward' (though forward and backward is obviously an illusion in the impersonal perspective). Some of the conversation is obviously repetitive but lines of enquiry seem to burn themselves out and new seeings emerge. One thing I can say with certainty is that there have been many times when I have felt a depth of appreciation for the companionship here. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2012 9:07:23 GMT -5
Read this one last night.
seeker: There are so many theories about the nature of man and universe. The creation theory, the illusion theory, the dream theory -- any number of them. Which is true?
Niz: All are true, all are false. You can pick up whichever you like best.
seeker: You seem to favor the dream theory.
Niz: These are all ways of putting words together. Some favor one way, some favor another. Theories are neither right nor wrong. They are attempts at explaining the inexplicable. It is not the theory that matters, but the way it is being tested. It is the testing of the theory that makes it fruitful. Experiment with any theory you like -- if you are truly earnest and honest, the attainment of reality will be yours. As a living being you are caught in an untenable and painful situation and you are seeking a way out. You are being offered several plans of your prisin, none quite true. But they are all of some value, only if you are in dead earnest. It is the earnestness that liberates and not the theory.
|
|
