|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 3:15:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. I like the Buddha quote. I see it as another way of saying 'we create our experience/reality', which may or may not be true, but either way I consider it to a useful assumption in some situations. I have considered reasons as to why Portto cannot see my point, and I lean towards a couple of those numbers. When replying to messages, sometimes I respond to an answer quickly, and sometimes I will consider what I am going to say more carefully. When it comes to Portto, my tendency is to consider my responses. Whether I respond quickly or slowly, to at least some extent, I try and respond from within the other person's frame of reference. For example, Tzu might talk about non-duality as 'the simultaneousness of oneness and separation', and I am happy to talk about it in those terms. Groundhog Day has been one of my most watched movies. Hi Andrew: I share my experiences, like separation/wholeness/both.. not as shorthand labels but as descriptions of the experiences.. my understanding is that non-duality cannot be an experience, so maybe it describes a belief about an experience.. Be well.. I would describe it as a label to describe the way things are. However, I would be happy to describe the way things are as: oneness and manyness (though oneness is primary) unity and separation (though unity is primary) I see a good thing about the label 'non-duality' is that the primariness of oneness/unity is presumed within the label. In terms of my experience, I would say that I experience oneness/unity more 'directly' that I used to. Though in another context its true to say that there is ONLY direct experience, and I guess the issue might then be about what attention is being placed on, or about 'values'. Sometimes I think it is useful to talk about personal experience and sometimes it is useful to talk about the way things are.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 3:26:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi B, and A: With much love and respect, i would ask that you look at the process of parsing out words and meanings until it becomes an academic game of word-lawyering.. I sense that there is oneness AND separation simultaneously, the 'difference' being where we place our attention, and.. to the still mind BOTH are experienced simultaneously.. Without specific reference to you guys, what i sense from many 'believers' is their intention to fit words and phrases into the shape of their beliefs, into their model for understaning.. Be well.. There is the appearance of separation, which is what is referred to as illusion. You mistake appearances for reality and derive the rather remarkable conclusion that both oneness and separation are both true. You and A have something in common: you have both become comfy with the confusion of ambiguous paradox. I am comfortable with there being both unity and separation, oneness and manyness, yes. Separation and manyness is true, its just not the whole truth. We can say that separation is an illusion and unity is real, but that doesn't make separation false. Equally we can say that separation is untrue (or false) and unity is true, but that doesn't make separation illusionary.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 19, 2013 6:19:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Andrew: I share my experiences, like separation/wholeness/both.. not as shorthand labels but as descriptions of the experiences.. my understanding is that non-duality cannot be an experience, so maybe it describes a belief about an experience.. Be well.. I would describe it as a label to describe the way things are. However, I would be happy to describe the way things are as: oneness and manyness (though oneness is primary) unity and separation (though unity is primary) I see a good thing about the label 'non-duality' is that the primariness of oneness/unity is presumed within the label. In terms of my experience, I would say that I experience oneness/unity more 'directly' that I used to. Though in another context its true to say that there is ONLY direct experience, and I guess the issue might then be about what attention is being placed on, or about 'values'. Sometimes I think it is useful to talk about personal experience and sometimes it is useful to talk about the way things are.Hi andy, Do you mean to imply that 'personal experience' and 'the way things are' are separate / opposites?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 6:51:25 GMT -5
I would describe it as a label to describe the way things are. However, I would be happy to describe the way things are as: oneness and manyness (though oneness is primary) unity and separation (though unity is primary) I see a good thing about the label 'non-duality' is that the primariness of oneness/unity is presumed within the label. In terms of my experience, I would say that I experience oneness/unity more 'directly' that I used to. Though in another context its true to say that there is ONLY direct experience, and I guess the issue might then be about what attention is being placed on, or about 'values'. Sometimes I think it is useful to talk about personal experience and sometimes it is useful to talk about the way things are.Hi andy, Do you mean to imply that 'personal experience' and 'the way things are' are separate / opposites? No, what I meant is that sometimes I find it useful to talk about what I tangibly experience, so I wouldn't say that I experience 'non-duality', I am more likely to say that I experience 'joy' or 'love'. On the other hand, sometimes I find it helpful to talk about the way that I see things are...for example, I might say that 'all is one'.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 7:20:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi B, and A: With much love and respect, i would ask that you look at the process of parsing out words and meanings until it becomes an academic game of word-lawyering.. I sense that there is oneness AND separation simultaneously, the 'difference' being where we place our attention, and.. to the still mind BOTH are experienced simultaneously.. Without specific reference to you guys, what i sense from many 'believers' is their intention to fit words and phrases into the shape of their beliefs, into their model for understaning.. Be well.. There is the appearance of separation, which is what is referred to as illusion. You mistake appearances for reality and derive the rather remarkable conclusion that both oneness and separation are both true. You and A have something in common: you have both become comfy with the confusion of ambiguous paradox. You 'think and speak', then you imagine that your 'think-speech' is true, regardless of the insurmountable evidence to the contrary, and.. when confronted with such evidence you claim 'there are no words to talk about it', or you redefine words to suit your imagined beliefs.. you keep droning the same mantra of your beliefs, but.. i see no evidence that you have ever simply stopped thinking, i sense that you are attached to your beliefs and that is your internal feedback loop that plays nonstop in you mind, and which you manifest in speech and print.. you do not engage others in sincere discussion, you are here to convince and convert others to sing along with your mantra.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 13:22:49 GMT -5
There is the appearance of separation, which is what is referred to as illusion. You mistake appearances for reality and derive the rather remarkable conclusion that both oneness and separation are both true. You and A have something in common: you have both become comfy with the confusion of ambiguous paradox. I am comfortable with there being both unity and separation, oneness and manyness, yes. Separation and manyness is true, its just not the whole truth. We can say that separation is an illusion and unity is real, but that doesn't make separation false. Equally we can say that separation is untrue (or false) and unity is true, but that doesn't make separation illusionary. Sure it does. To say a rope is a snake, is false. If a rope appears to be a snake, it's an illusion. Why purposely create an ambiguous paradox where there so obviously isn't one?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 13:43:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. I am comfortable with there being both unity and separation, oneness and manyness, yes. Separation and manyness is true, its just not the whole truth. We can say that separation is an illusion and unity is real, but that doesn't make separation false. Equally we can say that separation is untrue (or false) and unity is true, but that doesn't make separation illusionary. Sure it does. To say a rope is a snake, is false. If a rope appears to be a snake, it's an illusion. Why purposely create an ambiguous paradox where there so obviously isn't one?Stating that there is only oneness, is false.. there is that which 'is', and there is the absence of that which 'is', emptiness where that which 'is', is not.. to wrap that fundamental condition for existence in a conceptual belief about 'oneness' is self-deception.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 13:45:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. There is the appearance of separation, which is what is referred to as illusion. You mistake appearances for reality and derive the rather remarkable conclusion that both oneness and separation are both true. You and A have something in common: you have both become comfy with the confusion of ambiguous paradox. You 'think and speak', then you imagine that your 'think-speech' is true, regardless of the insurmountable evidence to the contrary, and.. when confronted with such evidence you claim 'there are no words to talk about it', or you redefine words to suit your imagined beliefs.. you keep droning the same mantra of your beliefs, but.. i see no evidence that you have ever simply stopped thinking, i sense that you are attached to your beliefs and that is your internal feedback loop that plays nonstop in you mind, and which you manifest in speech and print.. you do not engage others in sincere discussion, you are here to convince and convert others to sing along with your mantra.. Be well.. My comment to which you replied was an opportunity for sincere discussion. Instead, you chose to ignore the content and swing your sword wildly and accuse me of not engaging others in sincere discussion. This is a pattern that hasn't changed since I first met you. My conclusion is that the only discussion you're interested in is one in which others are in complete agreement with you. The rest is just an attempt to destroy the perceived enemy. I doubt that your ongoing claim of having a still mind is fooling anyone but yourself, though I don't think you've noticed that yet. I don't think you're trying to deceive anyone. Rather, I think you believe your own nonsense so deeply that no words can get through.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 13:47:33 GMT -5
Greetings.. Sure it does. To say a rope is a snake, is false. If a rope appears to be a snake, it's an illusion. Why purposely create an ambiguous paradox where there so obviously isn't one? Stating that there is only oneness, is false.. there is that which 'is', and there is the absence of that which 'is', emptiness where that which 'is', is not.. to wrap that fundamental condition for existence in a conceptual belief about 'oneness' is self-deception.. Be well.. Yikes!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 14:33:28 GMT -5
enigma's referenced quote: There is the appearance of separation, which is what is referred to as illusion. You mistake appearances for reality and derive the rather remarkable conclusion that both oneness and separation are both true. You and A have something in common: you have both become comfy with the confusion of ambiguous paradox. Then.. Greetings.. You 'think and speak', then you imagine that your 'think-speech' is true, regardless of the insurmountable evidence to the contrary, and.. when confronted with such evidence you claim 'there are no words to talk about it', or you redefine words to suit your imagined beliefs.. you keep droning the same mantra of your beliefs, but.. i see no evidence that you have ever simply stopped thinking, i sense that you are attached to your beliefs and that is your internal feedback loop that plays nonstop in you mind, and which you manifest in speech and print.. you do not engage others in sincere discussion, you are here to convince and convert others to sing along with your mantra.. Be well.. Then.. No, my friend.. look at your post, first quote of this post, it's an attack, wielding your beliefs and judgments as weapons in the manner you accuse me of, a justified accusation by the way, but.. when confronted with a skilled illusionist like yourself, the 'sword of clarity' comes in handy.. Here's the issue, you assume your 'Godly righteousness' (i recall that God is invited first, right?) and presume to preach to others without any interest in their attempts engage in sincere dialogue.. you claim " an opportunity for sincere discussion", but ask no questions in the post referenced (see opening quote, this post), you make accusations about Andrew and me, so.. no, again you are misrepresenting the actuality of what 'is'.. there was only the opportunity to listen to your message.. When you insist that something is an 'illusion' but offer no reasoning to substantiate that claim, it remains an invalid claim, otherwise every claim would be valid.. Here's your opportunity, let's have an open and sincere discussion about oneness, what do you understand as oneness?Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 14:41:17 GMT -5
I am comfortable with there being both unity and separation, oneness and manyness, yes. Separation and manyness is true, its just not the whole truth. We can say that separation is an illusion and unity is real, but that doesn't make separation false. Equally we can say that separation is untrue (or false) and unity is true, but that doesn't make separation illusionary. Sure it does. To say a rope is a snake, is false. If a rope appears to be a snake, it's an illusion. Why purposely create an ambiguous paradox where there so obviously isn't one? In one context it is appropriate to say that individuality is as true as oneness, and therefore that separation is as true and real as unity. The reason we might provide a contrast i.e. by saying that separation is false or illusionary, is to point to the primary nature OF oneness and unity, and to point away from conditioned beliefs which basically give separation more basis than is due! So, to say that separation is false doesn't necessarily make it illusionary and vice versa. I can say that separation is untrue, but still real in the widest sense....and I can say that separation is illusionary, but true in the widest sense. Equally, I might say that separation is illusionary and false. It all depends on the context that we are speaking in.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 14:56:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. Stating that there is only oneness, is false.. there is that which 'is', and there is the absence of that which 'is', emptiness where that which 'is', is not.. to wrap that fundamental condition for existence in a conceptual belief about 'oneness' is self-deception.. Be well.. Yikes!I get that.. when the actuality of your existence hits you, when you recognize the error of your beliefs, sometimes it's just.. 'yikes'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 15:06:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. Sure it does. To say a rope is a snake, is false. If a rope appears to be a snake, it's an illusion. Why purposely create an ambiguous paradox where there so obviously isn't one? In one context it is appropriate to say that individuality is as true as oneness, and therefore that separation is as true and real as unity. The reason we might provide a contrast i.e. by saying that separation is false or illusionary, is to point to the primary nature OF oneness and unity, and to point away from conditioned beliefs which basically give separation more basis than is due!
So, to say that separation is false doesn't necessarily make it illusionary and vice versa. I can say that separation is untrue, but still real in the widest sense....and I can say that separation is illusionary, but true in the widest sense. Equally, I might say that separation is illusionary and false. It all depends on the context that we are speaking in. Rather than try to please everyone, why not say you're not really certain? Or, admit that this existence hasn't finished creating itself yet (or ever), and you're just reporting your current understanding.. but, that is some wishy-washy stuff you just posted, and it feels a little slimy.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 15:18:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. In one context it is appropriate to say that individuality is as true as oneness, and therefore that separation is as true and real as unity. The reason we might provide a contrast i.e. by saying that separation is false or illusionary, is to point to the primary nature OF oneness and unity, and to point away from conditioned beliefs which basically give separation more basis than is due!
So, to say that separation is false doesn't necessarily make it illusionary and vice versa. I can say that separation is untrue, but still real in the widest sense....and I can say that separation is illusionary, but true in the widest sense. Equally, I might say that separation is illusionary and false. It all depends on the context that we are speaking in. Rather than try to please everyone, why not say you're not really certain? Or, admit that this existence hasn't finished creating itself yet (or ever), and you're just reporting your current understanding.. but, that is some wishy-washy stuff you just posted, and it feels a little slimy.. Be well.. I am reporting my understanding. My understanding is that both oneness and individuality are equally true, but it can be helpful in some situations to talk about the illusionary or false nature of separation. Really Tzu, I don't consider the case for me trying to 'please' people on forums is a very strong one! I just don't think this is a clear cut issue. Hence why terms like 'non-duality' and 'non-difference' can be helpful. I will say this to you with certainty....existence is non-dual in its nature.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 16:06:07 GMT -5
you claim " an opportunity for sincere discussion", but ask no questions in the post referenced (see opening quote, this post), I ask questions when I'm not clear what's being said. Why are questions required for a 'sincere' conversation? Not accusations. Andrew has been clear that he embraces ambiguity and paradox, and your statement that both oneness and separation are true is a paradox in anybody's book. Well, the reasoning that leads to the conclusion that oneness and separation cannot both be true, is obvious to the most casual observer, isn't it?
|
|