|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2013 19:50:59 GMT -5
It IS ridiculous. I'm just being open, honest and sincere. I do sense that this is you being honest, but It is very telling imo, that you could regard another's description of how he/she experiences reality TO BE 'ridiculous.'....it is after all just an attempt to share how 'this' is experienced. It's as though you believe there is a right way and a wrong way To experience.....  As I see it, so long as the experience is free from pain, angst and discord, I have little in the way of judgment about HOW someone is experiencing. I certainly cannot imagine labelling the other's described experience as 'ridiculous' in such a case. (or even otherwise). I was referring to your comment, not your experience: The illusion in question is the idea of division. You're saying to give primacy to oneness over division, is to divide. Absurd seems like the most appropriate word to me. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 17, 2013 20:11:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You describe your personal attachment to a belief as if that preference for the belief is somehow 'true', it is not.. it is an expression of your belief in an idea.. Be well..  No, that's not what i mean.. i mean your description is not consistent with the current condition of 'isness'.. "wrong" is your choice for a word to use that creates an illusion that suits your agenda.. from my perspective, "wrong", indicates a 'fixed' situation.. i described what i meant to describe, and i didn't use the word 'wrong'.. non-duality is not directly experiencable, it is a description of your beliefs 'about' your preferences.. the actuality of you talking about non-duality is the actuality of its inconsistency with what 'is'.. you find yourself continually explaining why the inconsistencies are illusions, when it is the descriptions of non-duality that are the 'illusions'.. The still mind is not interested in beliefs 'about' the existence it is experiencing, the clarity of a still mind has no doubt about the the 'now' it is currently experiencing.. it is hindsight, recollection, and beliefs 'about' those experiences that erupt into conflicts of intentions.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2013 20:26:52 GMT -5
I do sense that this is you being honest, but It is very telling imo, that you could regard another's description of how he/she experiences reality TO BE 'ridiculous.'....it is after all just an attempt to share how 'this' is experienced. It's as though you believe there is a right way and a wrong way To experience..... As I see it, so long as the experience is free from pain, angst and discord, I have little in the way of judgment about HOW someone is experiencing. I certainly cannot imagine labelling the other's described experience as 'ridiculous' in such a case. (or even otherwise). I was referring to your comment, not your experience: The illusion in question is the idea of division. You're saying to give primacy to oneness over division, is to divide. Absurd seems like the most appropriate word to me. Those two words don't quite go in the same context. To put 'sameness' above 'division' is to divide. To put 'oneness' above 'manyness' is to divide. And the reason it is divisive is because the many are many OF the one. The divisions are divisions within the one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2013 20:56:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. You mean I'm wrong?? No, that's not what i mean.. i mean your description is not consistent with the current condition of 'isness'.. "wrong" is your choice for a word to use that creates an illusion that suits your agenda.. from my perspective, "wrong", indicates a 'fixed' situation.. i described what i meant to describe, and i didn't use the word 'wrong'.. non-duality is not directly experiencable, it is a description of your beliefs 'about' your preferences.. the actuality of you talking about non-duality is the actuality of its inconsistency with what 'is'.. you find yourself continually explaining why the inconsistencies are illusions, when it is the descriptions of non-duality that are the 'illusions'.. The still mind is not interested in beliefs 'about' the existence it is experiencing, the clarity of a still mind has no doubt about the the 'now' it is currently experiencing.. it is hindsight, recollection, and beliefs 'about' those experiences that erupt into conflicts of intentions.. Be well.. A 'still mind' is one of those gifts a Guru gives his student who likes to grasp. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2013 20:57:02 GMT -5
I was referring to your comment, not your experience: yes, well, this comment; describes my experience. There is no sense of 'primacy' because there is nothing to hold above or compare to something else. It all just IS. So when you tell me my comment is 'ridiculous' you are in fact saying that my experience is ridiculous. Whether it is deemed to be absurd or not will depend where you are along the path. It is still very important to you to identify predominantly with oneness over individuation, because your Peace depends upon it. What is it that has you needing to give 'either' one 'primacy'? Explore into that and you will see how the need to give 'primacy' to oneness over division is firmly based in a need to identify with 'something.' Again, It's that need for a foundation or something to anchor onto that is in play. it's all about the fact that you still have attachments to shed. When this need for solid ground goes, so does the assignment of primacy. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 17, 2013 22:05:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. No, that's not what i mean.. i mean your description is not consistent with the current condition of 'isness'.. "wrong" is your choice for a word to use that creates an illusion that suits your agenda.. from my perspective, "wrong", indicates a 'fixed' situation.. i described what i meant to describe, and i didn't use the word 'wrong'.. non-duality is not directly experiencable, it is a description of your beliefs 'about' your preferences.. the actuality of you talking about non-duality is the actuality of its inconsistency with what 'is'.. you find yourself continually explaining why the inconsistencies are illusions, when it is the descriptions of non-duality that are the 'illusions'.. The still mind is not interested in beliefs 'about' the existence it is experiencing, the clarity of a still mind has no doubt about the the 'now' it is currently experiencing.. it is hindsight, recollection, and beliefs 'about' those experiences that erupt into conflicts of intentions.. Be well.. A 'still mind' is one of those gifts a Guru gives his student who likes to grasp. What do you think that means? i have no idea what you are trying to convey.. you seem to have beliefs about gurus, gifts, grasping, etc.. you seem to be trying to say something without actually saying it.. I became aware of the benefits of a 'still mind' and the clarity it reveals at an early age (mid-teens, mid 1960s), years before trying to find help from gurus, masters, sages, and other such distractions.. when i did decide to see if gurus et al could help put stillness and clarity into perspective, they revealed their flaw.. they believed they had 'the answer', and.. only two, of many, were interested in helping others discover their own relationship with Life, they were what i consider to be 'teachers', teaching through the example of the Lifes they live.. Here, in this forum, many people are interested in creating the perception that the beliefs they share are true, and that disagreement with those beliefs is untrue.. this belief lacks authenticity and creates conflicts, it is the same fundamental process of religions.. The 'still mind' is not a "gift", and the characterization of it as such reveals an unfamiliarity with the clarity of a 'still mind'.. the 'still mind' sees/experiences 'what is', what people believe about what 'is' distorts the clarity of a still mind.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2013 23:48:57 GMT -5
I was referring to your comment, not your experience: yes, well, this comment; describes my experience. There is no sense of 'primacy' because there is nothing to hold above or compare to something else. It all just IS. So when you tell me my comment is 'ridiculous' you are in fact saying that my experience is ridiculous. Whether it is deemed to be absurd or not will depend where you are along the path. It is still very important to you to identify predominantly with oneness over individuation, because your Peace depends upon it. What is it that has you needing to give 'either' one 'primacy'? Explore into that and you will see how the need to give 'primacy' to oneness over division is firmly based in a need to identify with 'something.' Again, It's that need for a foundation or something to anchor onto that is in play. it's all about the fact that you still have attachments to shed. When this need for solid ground goes, so does the assignment of primacy. Well, I don't have a need to come 'full circle' back to the self delusion of the separate self, so I'm free to say oneness is the case and separation is not. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 17, 2013 23:52:31 GMT -5
A 'still mind' is one of those gifts a Guru gives his student who likes to grasp. What do you think that means? i have no idea what you are trying to convey.. you seem to have beliefs about gurus, gifts, grasping, etc.. you seem to be trying to say something without actually saying it.. I became aware of the benefits of a 'still mind' and the clarity it reveals at an early age (mid-teens, mid 1960s), years before trying to find help from gurus, masters, sages, and other such distractions.. when i did decide to see if gurus et al could help put stillness and clarity into perspective, they revealed their flaw.. they believed they had 'the answer', and.. only two, of many, were interested in helping others discover their own relationship with Life, they were what i consider to be 'teachers', teaching through the example of the Lifes they live.. Here, in this forum, many people are interested in creating the perception that the beliefs they share are true, and that disagreement with those beliefs is untrue.. this belief lacks authenticity and creates conflicts, it is the same fundamental process of religions.. The 'still mind' is not a "gift", and the characterization of it as such reveals an unfamiliarity with the clarity of a 'still mind'.. the 'still mind' sees/experiences 'what is', what people believe about what 'is' distorts the clarity of a still mind.. Be well.. So you developed your own belief system 50 years ago, and eventually found a couple of teachers who apparently agreed with it. No wonder you're so intractable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2013 23:57:06 GMT -5
yes, well, this comment; describes my experience. There is no sense of 'primacy' because there is nothing to hold above or compare to something else. It all just IS. So when you tell me my comment is 'ridiculous' you are in fact saying that my experience is ridiculous. Whether it is deemed to be absurd or not will depend where you are along the path. It is still very important to you to identify predominantly with oneness over individuation, because your Peace depends upon it. What is it that has you needing to give 'either' one 'primacy'? Explore into that and you will see how the need to give 'primacy' to oneness over division is firmly based in a need to identify with 'something.' Again, It's that need for a foundation or something to anchor onto that is in play. it's all about the fact that you still have attachments to shed. When this need for solid ground goes, so does the assignment of primacy. Well, I don't have a need to come 'full circle' back to the self delusion of the separate self, so I'm free to say oneness is the case and separation is not. What I refer to as 'coming full circle' does not involve need of any kind, but rather the absence of it. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 18, 2013 0:55:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. What do you think that means? i have no idea what you are trying to convey.. you seem to have beliefs about gurus, gifts, grasping, etc.. you seem to be trying to say something without actually saying it.. I became aware of the benefits of a 'still mind' and the clarity it reveals at an early age (mid-teens, mid 1960s), years before trying to find help from gurus, masters, sages, and other such distractions.. when i did decide to see if gurus et al could help put stillness and clarity into perspective, they revealed their flaw.. they believed they had 'the answer', and.. only two, of many, were interested in helping others discover their own relationship with Life, they were what i consider to be 'teachers', teaching through the example of the Lifes they live.. Here, in this forum, many people are interested in creating the perception that the beliefs they share are true, and that disagreement with those beliefs is untrue.. this belief lacks authenticity and creates conflicts, it is the same fundamental process of religions.. The 'still mind' is not a "gift", and the characterization of it as such reveals an unfamiliarity with the clarity of a 'still mind'.. the 'still mind' sees/experiences 'what is', what people believe about what 'is' distorts the clarity of a still mind.. Be well.. LOL.. you are so diligent at twisting the words of others, so desperate to have your agenda appear to be valid.. i am not "intractable", you simply fail to present your beliefs in a believable format, and that is leaving open the possibility that there could be a 'believable format'.. It is your hostility toward the people that do not agree with you, and your insistent misrepresentations of their messages that diminish what very little believe-ability your messages might have.. you have set yourself above all others as this forum's authority for what is 'true', repeatedly declaring what is or is not true.. Then, when people tire of your juvenile tactics and your bully agenda, you play the 'poor Phil' card, 'put me on a pedestal only to shoot me down', or 'save me from the angry mob' (the one you intentionally pissed-off, by the way).. and, this is a recurring theme that you blame on others with tactics like 'plausible deniability', creating the illusions that your mockery, ridicule, and insults are just well-intended humor to help those you have just alienated.. This recurring theme is never looked-at introspectively, to see if maybe you are the variable that incites the 'angry mob', not because you 'struck some chord of truth'.. but, because you never present anything but a self-serving agenda built on your belief that you are the messiah that brings salvation to the ignorant (a term you have used several times) masses.. you refuse open, honest and direct discussions, the appearance of which is just your well-disguised agenda.. you have met your enemy, E.. and, it is 'you'.. and, even in the face of that actuality, you will struggle to make this about others, twisting and misrepresenting what is posted openly and honestly, to further your own agenda and create the illusion that you are the authority of 'truth', and the martyr of some imaginary noble cause.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2013 3:19:34 GMT -5
yes, well, this comment; describes my experience. There is no sense of 'primacy' because there is nothing to hold above or compare to something else. It all just IS. So when you tell me my comment is 'ridiculous' you are in fact saying that my experience is ridiculous. Whether it is deemed to be absurd or not will depend where you are along the path. It is still very important to you to identify predominantly with oneness over individuation, because your Peace depends upon it. What is it that has you needing to give 'either' one 'primacy'? Explore into that and you will see how the need to give 'primacy' to oneness over division is firmly based in a need to identify with 'something.' Again, It's that need for a foundation or something to anchor onto that is in play. it's all about the fact that you still have attachments to shed. When this need for solid ground goes, so does the assignment of primacy. Well, I don't have a need to come 'full circle' back to the self delusion of the separate self, so I'm free to say oneness is the case and separation is not. To say that oneness is the case is to say that manyness is the case. In that context there are selves, and there is separation. If there weren't, there would be no experiencing. I am not saying that selves and separation is the whole story, but tjhat's why we have the concept 'non-duality', to point to 'not-two'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2013 4:15:13 GMT -5
I was referring to your comment, not your experience: yes, well, this comment; describes my experience. There is no sense of 'primacy' because there is nothing to hold above or compare to something else. It all just IS. So when you tell me my comment is 'ridiculous' you are in fact saying that my experience is ridiculous. Whether it is deemed to be absurd or not will depend where you are along the path. It is still very important to you to identify predominantly with oneness over individuation, because your Peace depends upon it. What is it that has you needing to give 'either' one 'primacy'? Explore into that and you will see how the need to give 'primacy' to oneness over division is firmly based in a need to identify with 'something.' Again, It's that need for a foundation or something to anchor onto that is in play. it's all about the fact that you still have attachments to shed.
When this need for solid ground goes, so does the assignment of primacy. Yes, that's how I see it. The only reason to give one thing more absolute primacy than another thing is to grab hold a foundation of some kind, even if this foundation is conceptualized as not being a 'thing'. |
|
