|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 3:53:29 GMT -5
The person can never be free. The person is free when there is freedom from the person. There is freedom from the person when the person is free. Non-duality points to authenticity and freedom, just as dualistic teachings such as Abe-Hicks and Tony Robbins do. Its just different approaches. But authenticity and freedom is a position in which dualistic opposites are included, balanced and transcended. Person, no person.....self, no self.....truth, falsity.....actuality, illusion. From this position, relative contexts are still engaged with, but no one context is given absolute primacy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 3:59:11 GMT -5
Yes. Understood. There is an interesting point related to the forum here though. To give an example, I look at friends, most of which are pretty regular people. They are intelligent and relatively self-aware, grounded, and don't struggle with a lack of 'clarity'. I'm sure they wouldn't say their lives are perfect, but they get by okay. But by a certain spiritual standard, they would have to be considered 'insane, deluded and blind'. I am not sure what is more insane, deluded, blind. My friends or the aspect of the spiritual paradigm that sees non-spiritual people in that way. We don't have to talk about this, we can just carry on the way we all have been. Maybe I am being idealistic in suggesting that we can talk openly and honestly to each other about spiritual stuff without having to call each other insincere, deluded, insane etc. I would like to address this, at the risk of more 'bickering' that everybody is tired of, because I see it as important. Maybe most here see 'self delusion' and 'insanity' as egoic attack and insult, as you apparently do, but I'm not comfy with your characterization. We could say that the bulk of my interest here has been in gaining clarity about how the mind creates suffering. There's been a great deal of clarity regarding mind's purposeful ignor-ance of the obvious in favor of that which serves it's current needs. This is self delusion and it's where suffering and unconsciousness begins. It's not a minor point or a mere psychological anomaly but rather something that reveals the core of human suffering in a way that can be clearly seen if there is the slightest desire to see it. There typically is such a conscious desire, but not an unconscious desire, and so mind splits itself and deceives itself, which is very accurately described as self delusion. Self delusion is extremely common and quite insidious. To delude oneself, thereby creating suffering for oneself and others, while specifically focused on alleviating suffering in same, is accurately described as insanity. This is the 'normal' state of mankind. I point to self delusion and to insanity, not because I wish to insult or to hurt anyone's feelings or get anyone angry, but because there isn't anything more important than getting to the root of human suffering, and no more appropriate place to do it. ' From your perspective I can see why it makes sense to consider people in general to be self-deluded and insane. You see suffering as about false, wrong and deluded beliefs, so it makes sense that you would see the world in that way. I don't see suffering as about false, wrong and deluded beliefs, I see it more about limiting beliefs. I don't consider most people's beliefs to be false, wrong and deluded. People are not wrong when they observe themselves to exist, and to exist separately to each other. They are also not wrong when they observe interconnection. They are not even wrong when they observe free will, because what they are observing in themselves is an aspect that is beyond time and space, that is 'free'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 4:00:44 GMT -5
Used to think it was enough to be on the fence with this, but the more I learn about what the anti-people people say about what they mean by a "person", I gotta say I agree with Enigma in the assertion that the person can never be free. If you are seeing ideas as B.S or 'not ultimately true', then I can see why you might prefer one side of the fence there. As I see it, the non-dual definition of 'person' can be useful, but on the other hand, can also be quite limiting (and not just in the sense that all concepts are limited).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2013 6:40:22 GMT -5
Used to think it was enough to be on the fence with this, but the more I learn about what the anti-people people say about what they mean by a "person", I gotta say I agree with Enigma in the assertion that the person can never be free. If you are seeing ideas as B.S or 'not ultimately true', then I can see why you might prefer one side of the fence there. As I see it, the non-dual definition of 'person' can be useful, but on the other hand, can also be quite limiting (and not just in the sense that all concepts are limited). Useful for who to do what? edit: And what fence?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 6:51:10 GMT -5
If you are seeing ideas as B.S or 'not ultimately true', then I can see why you might prefer one side of the fence there. As I see it, the non-dual definition of 'person' can be useful, but on the other hand, can also be quite limiting (and not just in the sense that all concepts are limited). Useful for who to do what? edit: And what fence? Useful (relatively speaking) for the 'one' (that exists apparently or otherwise) that seeks to paradoxically become what they already are. I assumed a 'fence' is a 'neutral/balanced position'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2013 10:13:42 GMT -5
Useful for who to do what? edit: And what fence? Useful (relatively speaking) for the 'one' (that exists apparently or otherwise) that seeks to paradoxically become what they already are. I assumed a 'fence' is a 'neutral/balanced position'. "relatively speaking" - Is that all you can do? "the one that exists apparently or otherwise" - 'otherwise' like what? "become what they already are" - Can you become what you already are?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2013 10:56:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes. Understood. There is an interesting point related to the forum here though. To give an example, I look at friends, most of which are pretty regular people. They are intelligent and relatively self-aware, grounded, and don't struggle with a lack of 'clarity'. I'm sure they wouldn't say their lives are perfect, but they get by okay. But by a certain spiritual standard, they would have to be considered 'insane, deluded and blind'. I am not sure what is more insane, deluded, blind. My friends or the aspect of the spiritual paradigm that sees non-spiritual people in that way. We don't have to talk about this, we can just carry on the way we all have been. Maybe I am being idealistic in suggesting that we can talk openly and honestly to each other about spiritual stuff without having to call each other insincere, deluded, insane etc. I would like to address this, at the risk of more 'bickering' that everybody is tired of, because I see it as important. Maybe most here see 'self delusion' and 'insanity' as egoic attack and insult, as you apparently do, but I'm not comfy with your characterization. We could say that the bulk of my interest here has been in gaining clarity about how the mind creates suffering. There's been a great deal of clarity regarding mind's purposeful ignor-ance of the obvious in favor of that which serves it's current needs. This is self delusion and it's where suffering and unconsciousness begins. It's not a minor point or a mere psychological anomaly but rather something that reveals the core of human suffering in a way that can be clearly seen if there is the slightest desire to see it. There typically is such a conscious desire, but not an unconscious desire, and so mind splits itself and deceives itself, which is very accurately described as self delusion. Self delusion is extremely common and quite insidious. To delude oneself, thereby creating suffering for oneself and others, while specifically focused on alleviating suffering in same, is accurately described as insanity. This is the 'normal' state of mankind. I point to self delusion and to insanity, not because I wish to insult or to hurt anyone's feelings or get anyone angry, but because there isn't anything more important than getting to the root of human suffering, and no more appropriate place to do it. First, i applaud your stated intentions.. second, you are setting yourself up as judge of what suffering is and what its causes are, and.. third, you are presuming that your beliefs about the solutions are superior to those of others.. but worse, you feel empowered to speak with certain condescension and ridicule as you believe justifies your 'stated intentions'.. and for the record, there is no justification for your belief that 'believing there is no person, no separation will end suffering'.. you say you believe that yet you suffer.. When will you actually actually have open direct and honest discussions? when will you suspend your attachment to your self-righteousness and meet others as equals? A tree has many 'roots', just as human suffering has.. one of those 'roots' is the relentless derision for the experiences that others understand as true.. you want the respect and validation that you will not afford others, as the others you interact with are only useful expedients for your agenda.. There is not 'only oneness', and your categorization of 'parts' as 'appearances', is only valid if the observer chooses to believe that 'concept', but.. 'parts' are existent components of the whole, as both are directly experiencable and self-evident.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 11:17:04 GMT -5
Hi Tzu.. Greetings.. First, i applaud your stated intentions.. That was a breath of fresh air! This makes sense to me: And I don't see it inconsistent at all with what was mentioned immediately prior: Appearances are by definition experienceable. "Self-evident" is just another way of saying 'experienceable,' right? In fact, experiencing seems to be a way we digest what is whole. Breaking it a part, etc. yours, max
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2013 11:21:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Tzu.. Greetings.. First, i applaud your stated intentions.. That was a breath of fresh air! This makes sense to me: And I don't see it inconsistent at all with what was mentioned immediately prior: Appearances are by definition experienceable. "Self-evident" is just another way of saying 'experienceable,' right? In fact, experiencing seems to be a way we digest what is whole. Breaking it a part, etc. yours, max Hi Max: It becomes inconsistent when persons claim 'there are no parts'.. when the only vehicle for such a claim is through an existent 'part'.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 11:31:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Tzu.. That was a breath of fresh air! This makes sense to me: And I don't see it inconsistent at all with what was mentioned immediately prior: Appearances are by definition experienceable. "Self-evident" is just another way of saying 'experienceable,' right? In fact, experiencing seems to be a way we digest what is whole. Breaking it a part, etc. yours, max Hi Max: It becomes inconsistent when persons claim 'there are no parts'.. when the only vehicle for such a claim is through an existent 'part'.. Be well.. Why is inconsistency a problem? "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way...." (clunky translation) Seems to me inconsistency is part of the game. There is a pointing away from what is conventionally understood. As laughter is saying, I think, that project is valuable even when it seems it's not anymore.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 11:35:16 GMT -5
Useful (relatively speaking) for the 'one' (that exists apparently or otherwise) that seeks to paradoxically become what they already are. I assumed a 'fence' is a 'neutral/balanced position'. "relatively speaking" - Is that all you can do? "the one that exists apparently or otherwise" - 'otherwise' like what? "become what they already are" - Can you become what you already are? 'Useful' is relative isn't it? What more do you want? Oh, okay, 'useful' in the context of there being a path to authenticity, freedom, enlightenment etc. Apparently or actually. I would say that enlightenment is paradoxically becoming what you already are.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2013 11:44:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Max: It becomes inconsistent when persons claim 'there are no parts'.. when the only vehicle for such a claim is through an existent 'part'.. Be well.. Why is inconsistency a problem? "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way...." (clunky translation)
Seems to me inconsistency is part of the game. There is a pointing away from what is conventionally understood. As laughter is saying, I think, that project is valuable even when it seems it's not anymore.Inconsistency breeds confusion and conflict.. trying to justify inconsistency, as "part of the game" departs from the intention to see/experience with clarity, and.. at differing levels it insures the suffering that is supposed to be mitigated by the clarity.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 11:58:32 GMT -5
Hi... Greetings.. Why is inconsistency a problem? "The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way...." (clunky translation)
Seems to me inconsistency is part of the game. There is a pointing away from what is conventionally understood. As laughter is saying, I think, that project is valuable even when it seems it's not anymore. Inconsistency breeds confusion and conflict.. trying to justify inconsistency, as "part of the game" departs from the intention to see/experience with clarity, and.. at differing levels it insures the suffering that is supposed to be mitigated by the clarity.. Be well.. there is a mountain there is no mountain there is It's inconsistent. But by exploring how it's inconsistent some understanding and clarity can happen, maybe. And it can maybe be seen that what is inconsistent doesn't matter to what the essential points being communicated are. There are parts There are no parts there are There is you there is no you there is Inconsistency doesn't have to breed conflict either. Maybe just questions. take it easy...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2013 12:13:46 GMT -5
"relatively speaking" - Is that all you can do? "the one that exists apparently or otherwise" - 'otherwise' like what? "become what they already are" - Can you become what you already are? 'Useful' is relative isn't it? What more do you want? Oh, okay, 'useful' in the context of there being a path to authenticity, freedom, enlightenment etc. Apparently or actually. I would say that enlightenment is paradoxically becoming what you already are. So it's not absolute? So both the one that only apparently exists can become what it is and the one that actually exists can become what it is? So you can become what you already are? webster: context = the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs conditional = subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition absolute = being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships actual = existing in fact or reality reality = something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily Seems invoking 'context' has its limits and nothing to do with reality, actual, absolute.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2013 12:17:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi... Greetings.. Inconsistency breeds confusion and conflict.. trying to justify inconsistency, as "part of the game" departs from the intention to see/experience with clarity, and.. at differing levels it insures the suffering that is supposed to be mitigated by the clarity.. Be well.. there is a mountain there is no mountain there is It's inconsistent. But by exploring how it's inconsistent some understanding and clarity can happen, maybe. And it can maybe be seen that what is inconsistent doesn't matter to what the essential points being communicated are. There are parts There are no parts there are There is you there is no you there is Inconsistency doesn't have to breed conflict either. Maybe just questions. take it easy... I see no inconsistency in the process of those realizations.. i'm not comparing snapshots of the process, as are presented here.. i am engaged with the process itself.. this is "easy".. Be well..
|
|