|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 17:37:43 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in some mental orgasm about how it is really there in the Reality of mental construction, which sounds very much like Andrews TMT about how oneness makes separation a reality by definition. The best thing some peeps can learn is when to let the mind go on drooling and stop following it around as though it's saying something useful. Listen closely. Or read carefully. Whichever applies. In order to say that separation is an illusion or does not exist means that first, you have to have a reference for what separation is. Therefore, in some way, shape or form, separation does exist. It means that there is separation in at least one context. It means that separation is not inherently 'false' (but neither would I say it is inherently 'true'). I'm not sure I would particularly say it is 'real', but definitions vary. I've heard you say that a dozen times, cuz you often get into that mode of repeating yourself endlessly, apparently imagining nobody is quite understanding you. I heard it the first time, and the only point I was making is that it's word lawyering and TMT, and TRF is prone to doing the same when he gets into Neti-Neti mode and dismissing the dismissal of his dismissal. The insights are good, but then mind starts to think it knows something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there. That process might sound familiar to you. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 17:54:27 GMT -5
Listen closely. Or read carefully. Whichever applies. In order to say that separation is an illusion or does not exist means that first, you have to have a reference for what separation is. Therefore, in some way, shape or form, separation does exist. It means that there is separation in at least one context. It means that separation is not inherently 'false' (but neither would I say it is inherently 'true'). I'm not sure I would particularly say it is 'real', but definitions vary. I've heard you say that a dozen times, cuz you often get into that mode of repeating yourself endlessly, apparently imagining nobody is quite understanding you. I heard it the first time, and the only point I was making is that it's word lawyering and TMT, and TRF is prone to doing the same when he gets into Neti-Neti mode and dismissing the dismissal of his dismissal. The insights are good, but then mind starts to think it knows something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there. That process might sound familiar to you. And my point is that it is neither word lawyering or TMT. What I am demonstrating is that separation is not false, in and of itself. Even outside of the absolute context in which all ideas are equally true or false (or no idea is true or false), there is a context in which it is true to say that separation exists. I consider this a relevant point in terms of realizations as well. There are certain 'non-dual' realizations which I would say are significant and necessary. However, we know when they have been turned into conclusions when people speak of these realizations as if they are true in every context and also reject conditioned beliefs as false in every context. As important as non-dual realizations are, they don't actually render our conditioned beliefs to be false. Really, these realizations are just the other side of the coin, but are experienced as revelation because they break the boundaries of the logical mind. What I am saying is that there is separation and there isn't. There is duality and there isn't. And the reason that these dichotomies are able to be true is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2013 17:57:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. Listen closely. Or read carefully. Whichever applies. In order to say that separation is an illusion or does not exist means that first, you have to have a reference for what separation is. Therefore, in some way, shape or form, separation does exist. It means that there is separation in at least one context. It means that separation is not inherently 'false' (but neither would I say it is inherently 'true'). I'm not sure I would particularly say it is 'real', but definitions vary. I've heard you say that a dozen times, cuz you often get into that mode of repeating yourself endlessly, apparently imagining nobody is quite understanding you. I heard it the first time, and the only point I was making is that it's word lawyering and TMT, and TRF is prone to doing the same when he gets into Neti-Neti mode and dismissing the dismissal of his dismissal. The insights are good, but then mind starts to think it knows something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there. That process might sound familiar to you.it is very familiar.. you think you know something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 18:08:30 GMT -5
I've heard you say that a dozen times, cuz you often get into that mode of repeating yourself endlessly, apparently imagining nobody is quite understanding you. I heard it the first time, and the only point I was making is that it's word lawyering and TMT, and TRF is prone to doing the same when he gets into Neti-Neti mode and dismissing the dismissal of his dismissal. The insights are good, but then mind starts to think it knows something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there. That process might sound familiar to you. And my point is that it is neither word lawyering or TMT. What I am demonstrating is that separation is not false, in and of itself. Even outside of the absolute context in which all ideas are equally true or false (or no idea is true or false), there is a context in which it is true to say that separation exists. I consider this a relevant point in terms of realizations as well. There are certain 'non-dual' realizations which I would say are significant and necessary. However, we know when they have been turned into conclusions when people speak of these realizations as if they are true in every context and also reject conditioned beliefs as false in every context. As important as non-dual realizations are, they don't actually render our conditioned beliefs to be false. Really, these realizations are just the other side of the coin, but are experienced as revelation because they break the boundaries of the logical mind. What I am saying is that there is separation and there isn't. There is duality and there isn't. And the reason that these dichotomies are able to be true is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. You still think I don't know what you're saying, and you're still repeating yourself. Yes, separation is talked about as true in one context; the context in which it is useful to function as though it is true. Ultimately, it is false. And the reason that these dichotomies are false is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 18:09:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. I've heard you say that a dozen times, cuz you often get into that mode of repeating yourself endlessly, apparently imagining nobody is quite understanding you. I heard it the first time, and the only point I was making is that it's word lawyering and TMT, and TRF is prone to doing the same when he gets into Neti-Neti mode and dismissing the dismissal of his dismissal. The insights are good, but then mind starts to think it knows something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there. That process might sound familiar to you.it is very familiar.. you think you know something nobody else does and it all goes horribly wrong from there.. Be well.. I know less than you do, and I'm trying to help you know less too. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 25, 2013 18:20:04 GMT -5
And my point is that it is neither word lawyering or TMT. What I am demonstrating is that separation is not false, in and of itself. Even outside of the absolute context in which all ideas are equally true or false (or no idea is true or false), there is a context in which it is true to say that separation exists. I consider this a relevant point in terms of realizations as well. There are certain 'non-dual' realizations which I would say are significant and necessary. However, we know when they have been turned into conclusions when people speak of these realizations as if they are true in every context and also reject conditioned beliefs as false in every context. As important as non-dual realizations are, they don't actually render our conditioned beliefs to be false. Really, these realizations are just the other side of the coin, but are experienced as revelation because they break the boundaries of the logical mind. What I am saying is that there is separation and there isn't. There is duality and there isn't. And the reason that these dichotomies are able to be true is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. You still think I don't know what you're saying, and you're still repeating yourself. Yes, separation is talked about as true in one context; the context in which it is useful to function as though it is true. Ultimately, it is false. And the reason that these dichotomies are false is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. Im sorry, but you are not quite getting what I am saying. I am not talking specifically about the context in which it is useful to function, I am talking about the context in which we talk about the nature of existence/Reality itself. We say existence/Reality is 'non-dual' because there is duality and there isn't, there is separation and there isn't. We might also say that there is sameness and difference. Or even unity and separation. In this context, separation does exist. Its a context in which dichotomous truths apply. In the absolute context (or 'ultimately'), its neither true nor false. Or at least no more true or false than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 20:12:46 GMT -5
You still think I don't know what you're saying, and you're still repeating yourself. Yes, separation is talked about as true in one context; the context in which it is useful to function as though it is true. Ultimately, it is false. And the reason that these dichotomies are false is because the absolute context includes and transcends all relative contexts. Im sorry, but you are not quite getting what I am saying. I am not talking specifically about the context in which it is useful to function, I am talking about the context in which we talk about the nature of existence/Reality itself. We say existence/Reality is 'non-dual' because there is duality and there isn't, there is separation and there isn't. We might also say that there is sameness and difference. Or even unity and separation. In this context, separation does exist. Its a context in which dichotomous truths apply. In the absolute context (or 'ultimately'), its neither true nor false. Or at least no more true or false than anything else. I'm sorry, but I do get what you're saying. Separation is not the case, ever. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2013 20:52:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Im sorry, but you are not quite getting what I am saying. I am not talking specifically about the context in which it is useful to function, I am talking about the context in which we talk about the nature of existence/Reality itself. We say existence/Reality is 'non-dual' because there is duality and there isn't, there is separation and there isn't. We might also say that there is sameness and difference. Or even unity and separation. In this context, separation does exist. Its a context in which dichotomous truths apply. In the absolute context (or 'ultimately'), its neither true nor false. Or at least no more true or false than anything else. Denial is not evidence, ever.. if "separation is not the case, ever", what is the subject of the picture to my immediate right? that you cannot identify that subject is irrefutable evidence of separation between where 'you' are and where 'i' am, and on many levels, too.. you just keep repeating the same unsupportable nonsense as if it will become true at some magical number of repetitions.. then, when it's clear that it's not 'true', you weave story-illusions to trick people into believing what you want them to believe, rather than engage in open, honest, direct and respectful discussions.. if you trusted your beliefs, you would be willing to have the discussions. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 21:00:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. I'm sorry, but I do get what you're saying. Separation is not the case, ever. Denial is not evidence, ever.. if "separation is not the case, ever", what is the subject of the picture to my immediate right? that you cannot identify that subject is irrefutable evidence of separation between where 'you' are and where 'i' am, and on many levels, too.. you just keep repeating the same unsupportable nonsense as if it will become true at some magical number of repetitions.. then, when it's clear that it's not 'true', you weave story-illusions to trick people into believing what you want them to believe, rather than engage in open, honest, direct and respectful discussions.. if you trusted your beliefs, you would be willing to have the discussions. Be well.. You don't have the clarity for this particular discussion. Possibly, we can talk in the context of harmonious relationships as that seems to be what you're exploring. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 21:47:21 GMT -5
So your saying that the Reality of Silver and Tzu's mental construction is NOT there because it is an illusion?? Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in some mental orgasm about how it is really there in the Reality of mental construction, which sounds very much like Andrews TMT about how oneness makes separation a reality by definition. The best thing some peeps can learn is when to let the mind go on drooling and stop following it around as though it's saying something useful. Well it sure seems like your interested in some mental masturbation. It's nonsensical to say that the experience of an illusion isn't experienced because it's NOT really there. We don't 'experience' things that aren't there, we experience things that are there. Seems simple enough to me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 25, 2013 22:26:03 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in some mental orgasm about how it is really there in the Reality of mental construction, which sounds very much like Andrews TMT about how oneness makes separation a reality by definition. The best thing some peeps can learn is when to let the mind go on drooling and stop following it around as though it's saying something useful. Well it sure seems like your interested in some mental masturbation. It's nonsensical to say that the experience of an illusion isn't experienced because it's NOT really there. I haven't said it's not experienced. What I've said is that it's not there. But we do. Where does the experience of a snake come from when what is really there is a rope? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 25, 2013 23:38:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Denial is not evidence, ever.. if "separation is not the case, ever", what is the subject of the picture to my immediate right? that you cannot identify that subject is irrefutable evidence of separation between where 'you' are and where 'i' am, and on many levels, too.. you just keep repeating the same unsupportable nonsense as if it will become true at some magical number of repetitions.. then, when it's clear that it's not 'true', you weave story-illusions to trick people into believing what you want them to believe, rather than engage in open, honest, direct and respectful discussions.. if you trusted your beliefs, you would be willing to have the discussions. Be well.. Possibly, we can talk in the context of harmonious relationships as that seems to be what you're exploring. Hi E: That's your classic modus operandi (MO), say one thing, 'that you can discuss in any context', but 'do' something different.. look for a way out, an escape, when it involves "open, honest, direct and respectful discussions".. It's not that "You don't have the clarity for this particular discussion", you haven't yet encountered clarity within yourself, and so cannot recognize it in others.. the prospect of "open, honest, direct and respectful discussions" simply frightens you, doesn't it, and only slightly more than admitting it.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 23:39:04 GMT -5
Well it sure seems like your interested in some mental masturbation. It's nonsensical to say that the experience of an illusion isn't experienced because it's NOT really there. I haven't said it's not experienced. What I've said is that it's not there. But we do. Where does the experience of a snake come from when what is really there is a rope? Your mistake is to believe that there is 'really' something there called a rope and something that's not 'really' there called a snake. That's just another bifurcation of thought. The only thing being experienced is the sense of sight. There is no objective rope or snake. It is thought that says there is a rope or snake. To call one thought an illusion and the other thought 'real' demonstrates a lack of Clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 25, 2013 23:53:34 GMT -5
This board has 3-4 of the most patient dream characters I've ever imagined.
Just amazing.
Wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 2:10:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. You don't have the clarity for this particular discussion. Possibly, we can talk in the context of harmonious relationships as that seems to be what you're exploring. Hi E: That's your classic modus operandi (MO), say one thing, 'that you can discuss in any context', but 'do' something different.. look for a way out, an escape, when it involves "open, honest, direct and respectful discussions".. It's not that "You don't have the clarity for this particular discussion", you haven't yet encountered clarity within yourself, and so cannot recognize it in others.. the prospect of "open, honest, direct and respectful discussions" simply frightens you, doesn't it, and only slightly more than admitting it.. Be well.. Oh, yes, Tzu, you've just got me trembling in my boots. ;D |
|
