|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 18:14:10 GMT -5
What I see is people basically being truthful and sincere from within the context of their frame of reference. Although I am very sensitive to when people are experiencing disconnection and even to environments in which there is a strong collective disconnection, I don't generally experience people as being insincere or lying. It just so happens that their belief systems are somewhat limiting in their nature and create an experience of disconnection. Sure, I've said myself lately that peeps don't usually lie or consciously deceive. I've also said that they see themselves as sincere. That's why I quoted my definition of sincerity. I don't mean "from within the context of their frame of reference". Its not even that they see themselves as sincere (though they may do) they are basically sincere. I'm watching Richard Pryor on tv right now doing stand up, clearly talking with sincerity even amidst the jokes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2013 18:15:20 GMT -5
So if you're a human and you think you're a wabbit, when you realize you are a human, you paradoxically become a human? What? In the context of enlightenment being a process of becoming what we already are, I am not saying that 'what we are' is human, I am running with the non-dual paradigm which is paradoxical. It was a contextual analogy, Andrew. Nobody ever becomes what they already are, it's just realized to be what they are. You're so enamored with paradox you create them all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 18:18:33 GMT -5
Non-duality teachings points to freedom and unconditional love. Self-improvement (well at least some of it) points to freedom and unconditional love. 2 approaches to the same thing. Self improvement points to personal freedom and the illusion of unconditional love, neither of which is attainable. Its an attainable as the unconditional love that non-duality points to. They both point to a fundamental love, an essential love. Both non-duality and self-improvement points to acceptance and allowance. They both point to releasing limiting conditioned beliefs. They both point to abundance consciousness. They both point to experience as being prior to the bodymind form.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2013 18:21:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. What I've said about parts is that there are no parts to oneness/wholeness. It's a matter of context. No, you're word-gaming.. there are 'parts', no context variable applies to the issues we are discussing.. you are, again, twisting simplicity into complexity for your personal purpose.. You are the 'part' claiming there is 'no part', the looking for a way to create an illusion of 'no parts' to fit your claim.. and it goes something like this, "here, let me tell you what to 'think', then 'we' can think it together, pretending that we are not thinking".. Be well.. There are no parts to oneness. Nothing is separate from anything. 'You' are not the author of 'your' thoughts and nobody's thoughts are isolated from those of 'another'. Oneness is never not one.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 18:23:24 GMT -5
What? In the context of enlightenment being a process of becoming what we already are, I am not saying that 'what we are' is human, I am running with the non-dual paradigm which is paradoxical. It was a contextual analogy, Andrew. Nobody ever becomes what they already are, it's just realized to be what they are. You're so enamored with paradox you create them all over the place. As an analogy it fails because the non-dual paradigm is paradoxical whereas the example you gave, was not. In the context of individuality, there is a becoming. That's the paradox of Being and Becoming. We become what we Are. We become 'our' Selves.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2013 18:24:49 GMT -5
Self improvement points to personal freedom and the illusion of unconditional love, neither of which is attainable. Its an attainable as the unconditional love that non-duality points to. They both point to a fundamental love, an essential love. Both non-duality and self-improvement points to acceptance and allowance. They both point to releasing limiting conditioned beliefs. They both point to abundance consciousness. They both point to experience as being prior to the bodymind form. Nonduality points to abundance consciousness? Experience is prior to form?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2013 18:27:18 GMT -5
It was a contextual analogy, Andrew. Nobody ever becomes what they already are, it's just realized to be what they are. You're so enamored with paradox you create them all over the place. As an analogy it fails because the non-dual paradigm is paradoxical whereas the example you gave, was not. I gave the example to show that one does not become what one already is. One already is that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 18:28:07 GMT -5
Its an attainable as the unconditional love that non-duality points to. They both point to a fundamental love, an essential love. Both non-duality and self-improvement points to acceptance and allowance. They both point to releasing limiting conditioned beliefs. They both point to abundance consciousness. They both point to experience as being prior to the bodymind form. Nonduality points to abundance consciousness? Experience is prior to form? Yes. Lack consciousness is the experience of 'not enough'. Abundance consciousness is the experience of 'enough'. And yes, both point to birth and death as opposites, and Life itself as having no opposite.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2013 18:28:43 GMT -5
As an analogy it fails because the non-dual paradigm is paradoxical whereas the example you gave, was not. I gave the example to show that one does not become what one already is. One already is that. The example doesn't work because it doesn't illustrate the paradox of Being and Becoming.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2013 21:29:56 GMT -5
I gave the example to show that one does not become what one already is. One already is that. The example doesn't work because it doesn't illustrate the paradox of Being and Becoming. It illustrates that there is no paradox. That's why I used it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 22, 2013 22:09:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No, you're word-gaming.. there are 'parts', no context variable applies to the issues we are discussing.. you are, again, twisting simplicity into complexity for your personal purpose.. You are the 'part' claiming there is 'no part', the looking for a way to create an illusion of 'no parts' to fit your claim.. and it goes something like this, "here, let me tell you what to 'think', then 'we' can think it together, pretending that we are not thinking".. Be well.. There are no parts to oneness. Nothing is separate from anything. 'You' are not the author of 'your' thoughts and nobody's thoughts are isolated from those of 'another'. Oneness is never not one. Yes, there are parts to oneness.. you simply do not understand the reality beyond the beliefs you have chosen to attach to.. letting go of all beliefs, all 'knowing', all attachments is Liberation, and.. for 'parts' like you, it is too frightening to face without a 'safe-word', "Oneness".. a place where you can pretend there is no 'person' to face actual Liberation.. i get that, complete release requires faith in the whole, but.. you're not there, yet, not even interested, it seems.. you are still coddling your attachments, your self-image as savior and truth bearer, your well-practiced slippery mantras and plausible denials.. Drop it all, step into freedom, into real liberation.. Be still, and know.. just look, and see.. it really is that simple, when you're ready.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2013 22:50:14 GMT -5
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. In the context of there being such thing as 'enlightenment', we can become what we already are, yes. The one that apparently or actually exists can become what it is, yes. In this context, we could say that the 'what it is', is unimaginable. Useful is relative, yes. Its my way of acknowledging that in an absolute context, none of these conversations (or any approaches) are necessarily useful in the context of 'enlightenment'. Becoming what you already are is nonsense. When you look at the definitions of 'absolute' and 'context' you will see that an 'absolute context' is an oxymoron and a nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2013 0:09:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. There are no parts to oneness. Nothing is separate from anything. 'You' are not the author of 'your' thoughts and nobody's thoughts are isolated from those of 'another'. Oneness is never not one. Yes, there are parts to oneness.. you simply do not understand the reality beyond the beliefs you have chosen to attach to.. letting go of all beliefs, all 'knowing', all attachments is Liberation, and.. for 'parts' like you, it is too frightening to face without a 'safe-word', "Oneness".. a place where you can pretend there is no 'person' to face actual Liberation.. i get that, complete release requires faith in the whole, but.. you're not there, yet, not even interested, it seems.. you are still coddling your attachments, your self-image as savior and truth bearer, your well-practiced slippery mantras and plausible denials.. Drop it all, step into freedom, into real liberation.. Be still, and know.. just look, and see.. it really is that simple, when you're ready.. Be well.. You're attachment to being 'somebody' and being in control makes oneness too terrifying to face. It doesn't require any saber rattling but it requires some courage and integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2013 0:14:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes, there are parts to oneness.. you simply do not understand the reality beyond the beliefs you have chosen to attach to.. letting go of all beliefs, all 'knowing', all attachments is Liberation, and.. for 'parts' like you, it is too frightening to face without a 'safe-word', "Oneness".. a place where you can pretend there is no 'person' to face actual Liberation.. i get that, complete release requires faith in the whole, but.. you're not there, yet, not even interested, it seems.. you are still coddling your attachments, your self-image as savior and truth bearer, your well-practiced slippery mantras and plausible denials.. Drop it all, step into freedom, into real liberation.. Be still, and know.. just look, and see.. it really is that simple, when you're ready.. Be well.. You're attachment to being 'somebody' and being in control makes oneness too terrifying to face. It doesn't require any saber rattling but it requires some courage and integrity.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 23, 2013 0:37:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Yes, there are parts to oneness.. you simply do not understand the reality beyond the beliefs you have chosen to attach to.. letting go of all beliefs, all 'knowing', all attachments is Liberation, and.. for 'parts' like you, it is too frightening to face without a 'safe-word', "Oneness".. a place where you can pretend there is no 'person' to face actual Liberation.. i get that, complete release requires faith in the whole, but.. you're not there, yet, not even interested, it seems.. you are still coddling your attachments, your self-image as savior and truth bearer, your well-practiced slippery mantras and plausible denials.. Drop it all, step into freedom, into real liberation.. Be still, and know.. just look, and see.. it really is that simple, when you're ready.. Be well.. You're attachment to being 'somebody' and being in control makes oneness too terrifying to face. It doesn't require any saber rattling but it requires some courage and integrity. After the many times you have been invited to see clearly, you can only play the "i'm rubber, you're glue" card.. i ask many many times for the open and honest 'discussion', and this is all you have, twisting and evading.. so, if that's 'oneness', no thanks, your example is none too inviting.. what you will not face, is that i have faced 'oneness' and i have seen through its exclusionary farce, the same farce you are still attached to.. Be well..
|
|