|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 17:49:57 GMT -5
Saying that teachers (though I guess we could talk of plumbers and engineers and hairdressers too) are separate from you and united in the same wholeness is correct. Of course it's not. I AM that wholeness. There is no means by which I can become unwhole, and therefore no means by which I can become united. You are part and whole simultaneously. If you weren't, you wouldn't have just spoken of an 'I'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 17:52:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. What you mean to say is 'By God, I'm gonna keep my separate individuality come divine dichotomy hell or high water'. So it's not true that Andrew embraces paradox and it's not true that 'there is both oneness and separation' is a paradox? Those are accusations and misrepresentations? enigma: 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?Tzu: Try addressing the the substance of the quote you reference.. your response is your typical deflection from the issue..
You wanted me to supply reasoning, and I did. Now you want me to go back to the quote and find something else that you didn't say? Oneness is no doubt the most obvious and least prone to misinterpretation of all the nonduality lingo, and for good reason. Some smart peeps have been very careful to leave you no way to misinterpret. Oneness requires no definition. If you think it does, you're busy trying to make it say something it does not say. You have failed, at every juncture, to engage sincerely, for the actualities i have stated previously.. it seems that your 'oneness' references your ability to conceptualize no more than that 'One' belief, or to answer any question with anything other than a segue to that 'One' belief.. That there is 'one' drop of water, represents the 'oneness' of that drop.. that there is 'one' planet earth, represents that planet's 'oneness'.. but, in all cases, 'oneness' is a conceptual description/belief about a complexity of processes and actualities, a symphony of multiplicities.. that you and i have this difference of beliefs is real evidence of multiplicity.. that you choose to attach a conceptual label of 'oneness' to existence does not change existence into 'oneness', it only describes your preference for a description of your existence.. Be well.. Very imaginative. ;D If I believed you were even the slightest bit open to listening and looking, I would try to talk about it. Alas, I don't. Bee well..........
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2013 17:58:13 GMT -5
Greetings.. enigma: 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?Tzu: Try addressing the the substance of the quote you reference.. your response is your typical deflection from the issue..
You wanted me to supply reasoning, and I did. Now you want me to go back to the quote and find something else that you didn't say? Oneness is no doubt the most obvious and least prone to misinterpretation of all the nonduality lingo, and for good reason. Some smart peeps have been very careful to leave you no way to misinterpret. Oneness requires no definition. If you think it does, you're busy trying to make it say something it does not say. You have failed, at every juncture, to engage sincerely, for the actualities i have stated previously.. it seems that your 'oneness' references your ability to conceptualize no more than that 'One' belief, or to answer any question with anything other than a segue to that 'One' belief.. That there is 'one' drop of water, represents the 'oneness' of that drop.. that there is 'one' planet earth, represents that planet's 'oneness'.. but, in all cases, 'oneness' is a conceptual description/belief about a complexity of processes and actualities, a symphony of multiplicities.. that you and i have this difference of beliefs is real evidence of multiplicity.. that you choose to attach a conceptual label of 'oneness' to existence does not change existence into 'oneness', it only describes your preference for a description of your existence.. Be well.. Very imaginative. ;D If I believed you were even the slightest bit open to listening and looking, I would try to talk about it. Alas, I don't.Bee well.......... Come down out of your judge's chamber, i have been asking for years.. asking very sincerely, but in the same way you treat others.. meet on a level playing field and i'm open to anything, and willing to discuss fairly.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 18:11:03 GMT -5
To talk of Self-Realization is to talk of individuals Realizing Self, even though a paradoxical aspect of that process is realizing that in an absolute context, there is no individuality. No separate person ever realized anything, which also does away with the imaginary paradox. To speak of Self-Realization is to speak of individuals that Realize Self or are Self-Realized even if the pointer offered is 'no-one Realizes Self'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:35:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Right, so the final answer is not that two opposing ideas are true. Let it go, my friend.. you are starting to clutch at smoke and mirrors for your reasoning.. you twist people's words and try to manipulate their messages just to get 'your' way, to have 'your' beliefs 'appear' valid.. you are so attached to evangelizing and crusading for 'non-duality' that i fear for your health, physical and mental.. Be well.. You're telling me that my feet stink again. What does it mean to say it's true there is both oneness and separation, but that there is no final answer?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:36:59 GMT -5
Right, so the final answer is not that two opposing ideas are true. I agree, I'm not saying that is the final answer. It sounds like Tzu is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 18:39:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. Let it go, my friend.. you are starting to clutch at smoke and mirrors for your reasoning.. you twist people's words and try to manipulate their messages just to get 'your' way, to have 'your' beliefs 'appear' valid.. you are so attached to evangelizing and crusading for 'non-duality' that i fear for your health, physical and mental.. Be well.. You're telling me that my feet stink again. What does it mean to say it's true there is both oneness and separation, but that there is no final answer? If its true that both oneness and separation are true, then what we are left with is a non-conclusion, or a paradoxical conclusion, which therefore isn't the kind of conclusion that the attached mind seeks. The attached mind wants the linearity of straight conclusions, because the linearity gives the mind something to attach to.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:40:37 GMT -5
You even say yourself that experience is dualistic. Yes, experience is an illusion. Duality is an illusion. It means it's not what it appears to be. What it is.....is oneness.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 18:42:04 GMT -5
You even say yourself that experience is dualistic. Yes, experience is an illusion. Duality is an illusion. It means it's not what it appears to be. What it is.....is oneness. Only in one context can experience and duality be said to be an illusion. In another context it is not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:42:43 GMT -5
Of course it's not. I AM that wholeness. There is no means by which I can become unwhole, and therefore no means by which I can become united. You are part and whole simultaneously. If you weren't, you wouldn't have just spoken of an 'I'. No I'm not, and neither are 'you'. If I speak 'pterodactyl', does it mean I'm a pterodactyl?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 18:52:28 GMT -5
You are part and whole simultaneously. If you weren't, you wouldn't have just spoken of an 'I'. No I'm not, and neither are 'you'. If I speak 'pterodactyl', does it mean I'm a pterodactyl? If you speak 'pterodactyl' it means that you are aware of something other than 'pterodactyl'. To speak of a whole is to recognize a part. There is clearly 'otherness' in some way, shape or form. And yet there is also not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:55:39 GMT -5
Yes, experience is an illusion. Duality is an illusion. It means it's not what it appears to be. What it is.....is oneness. Only in one context can experience and duality be said to be an illusion. In another context it is not. Right. In the context of oneness, duality is an illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 18:56:21 GMT -5
Then your guess is incorrect. Another complexity of nondualism i see that intrigues me is the repeated claim that nonduality is a truth, but at the same time claiming it is imaginary. (specifically, the complexities are within nondualists, not nonduality, seeing as nonduality is a human construct)
Also, if you like, please quote me where you interpret me as spitting, and some kind of explanation as to how you reached your conclusion i am spitting. I will not challenge your interpretation, you can think whatever you want about me. I simply want to see what i have said that you interpret as being offensive to others so i can understand what's with your mindtank. If you don't want to do this, then i shall simply rely on my current conclusions about you.EDIT: spelling error Personal log: Omg, concerning hobbits...no wait...concerning forum platforms, ProBoards suxorz compared to vBulletin. I'm pretty sure you're going to rely on your current conclusions regardless. Virtually every post you've made here is an attack on the members here regarding their nonduality understanding. I referred to this as 'spitting' cuz that's what it looks like when somebody does what you are doing. Considering you haven't given an explanation of how you come to your conclusion i am spitting, but have only offered a definition of it, Spitting - "an attack on the members here regarding their nonduality understanding.", it seems quite logical that i am going to have to rely on my current conclusions, seeing as you have chosen to not offer any more information for me to ponder.
I could choose to now ask you to explain how you came to your conclusion i am attacking people regarding their understanding about nondualism, but look what you did with my last request. I have no proof if you would actually explain yourself this time or not, but i choose not to ask and conclude i would simply be wasting my time. My decision is not based on fact but on a calculation/speculation/reasoning of the response you just gave and weeks of reading and seeing how you interact with others.
Quite simply, i made a request, it was not fulfilled, i choose to stop making requests. You go your way and i shall go mine and everyone remains as they were. I remain calm, peaceful and joyful as i interact with others, and you do whatever you want. No harm, no fowl from either of us as i see it. You believe whatever you want and i shall continue with my explorations.
I also could discuss "cuz that's what it looks like", but again, because of the possibility that it could be a waste of time, i simply choose to let that go too.
Anyways...you said you are pretty sure i will rely on my current conclusions regardless of whether you give an explanation or not...which brings me to your next question.Why do i theorise this about others, because of the very fact that you are convinced i will behave in a certain way regardless of your response. You are convinced you know the truth before any data is presented via the experience, and i have learnt from my experiences that when a person is convinced their conclusion is the truth, they will not entertain thoughts contrary to that.
Also, here's my original post...
The idea in question, of which i speculated nondualists wouldn't explore is, "beliefs and concepts of nonduality reside in individuals", not the ideas set forth by Buddha in his quote. And your response in one simple interaction with me where you show you think you know the truth adds weight to my theory.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2013 18:56:54 GMT -5
No I'm not, and neither are 'you'. If I speak 'pterodactyl', does it mean I'm a pterodactyl? If you speak 'pterodactyl' it means that you are aware of something other than 'pterodactyl'. To speak of a whole is to recognize a part. There is clearly 'otherness' in some way, shape or form. And yet there is also not. Yes, there is otherness as an illusion.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2013 18:57:34 GMT -5
If you speak 'pterodactyl' it means that you are aware of something other than 'pterodactyl'. To speak of a whole is to recognize a part. There is clearly 'otherness' in some way, shape or form. And yet there is also not. Yes, there is otherness as an illusion. In one context it is an illusion, and in another it is not. At the very least, if it is an illusion, in an odd way, this illusion is a real one! The spiritual exploration leaves us with no final answer. What is dropped is the need for a final answer. Although it can be useful to talk of getting off the hamster wheel of mind, to engage with spiritual discussion is to spin that wheel on and on and on. That's not a problem when there is no need for a final answer.
|
|