|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 25, 2010 11:19:37 GMT -5
Reality is not a concept, how can I not be open to reality? I wish I could live in a purely conceptual world, but it doesn't matter whether my mind is thinking or not, reality still happens. What do you see when you investigate/look at reality? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 12:26:19 GMT -5
"Innocence denotes the lack of guilt because the innocent is simply not responsible for the actions in question. Or it can denote the lack of guilt because the innocent is unaware or ignorant of the outcome of its own actions. If the first is true, then it's not creative. If the latter is true, then it's not intelligent. In any case I don't see how innocence can be attributed to _______."
As I see it, ignorance is false knowledge, and is the opposite of innocence. You see innocence as the opposite of guilt, and you base you conclusions on your ideas of guilt and responsibility, which are predicated on the idea of separation. Innocence takes on a different connotation if separation is not the truth.
You would have it that there can't be intelligence in the absence of the ability to predict outcomes, which is predicated on the idea that a temporal flow of time is a reality. Intelligence takes on a different connotation in the absence of time.
The way I'm talking about innocence is in the absence of thoughts culled from the past and projected into the future, which ultimately means the absence of thought.
What I mean by intelligence here is simply the source of creation.
My point (trying not to draw too much attention to the arm) is that the source of creation cannot think from 'outside' of it's own creation, but only from within.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 12:33:37 GMT -5
"Next, an intelligence that doesn't think, doesn't choose, predict or plan? Then why even bother calling it intelligent? What are the exact facts that necessitate an intelligent cosmic power?"
I didn't call an 'it' intelligent. I referred to the source of creation as intelligence. It's just a way of conceptualizing about the concept of source, and it's not ultimately True, so lets not start defining facts. If the word has too many connotations for you it's not useful in this context.
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Post by lobo on Sept 25, 2010 12:34:56 GMT -5
Zendancer, You say interact with the world thorough your senses, however your senses can and do mislead you. For example, you know the story of one who sees a snake which turns out on further investigation to be a rope or the one in which you cross your fingers and then slide a pencil between them your sense of touch tells you there are two pencils instead of one pencil. Of course these are simple examples, but they show how your senses can and do mislead you. Of course who we think we are is an imaginary construct, otherwise the age old question of "who am I " would have no relevance today and this board would be obsolete. We know intuitively who we think we are is an imaginary construct, but that tells us nothing more then who we think we are is an imaginary construct. To tell me there is no space between see-er and seen, thinker and thought much less who or what controls the autonomic nervous system may be as much an imaginary construct as who we think we are. There may be only chaos which our imagination transforms into infinite constructs. What ever ________ is may be chaos transformed into a construct and a construct can fall back into chaos. LOL ROFLMAO!!!  great, great all this spiritual mumbo jumbo, just more constructinons good job pointing this out sometimes I think "just shut the #^%* up!" but you say it eloquently lol still loving it |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 13:16:16 GMT -5
"Lastly, I don't see a qualitative difference of the God you would be ready to fight till death and the innocent creative intelligence that is excused from all the world's suffering because from it's absolute point of view it's all cool."
The absolute doesn't have a point of view. That's the point. The creation has points of view, at least that's my point of view.
" You see, doership and identity isn't limited to the traditional sense of a person, it can equally be attributed to a process. If there is a process at work that is responsible for the world's suffering then I will do everything to end this process, and if I can't end it, I will avoid it, if I can't avoid it, I will minimize its effects, if I can't do that then the only choice is to quit the game."
Well, ending creation seems like a pretty drastic solution to an imaginary problem.
" Do you see how impossible it is to live a life for which something is responsible? I can't live such a life and so I have to think my way out of believing that there is anything at all responsible for anything."
Yeah, I see the difficulty there, which is why I went to the trouble of talking about identifying with that sentiment, and why i tried to talk about why nothing is responsible. I don't see any indication that any of that got past your barricades.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 13:54:00 GMT -5
"Innocence denotes the lack of guilt because the innocent is simply not responsible for the actions in question. Or it can denote the lack of guilt because the innocent is unaware or ignorant of the outcome of its own actions. If the first is true, then it's not creative. If the latter is true, then it's not intelligent. In any case I don't see how innocence can be attributed to _______." As I see it, ignorance is false knowledge, and is the opposite of innocence. You see innocence as the opposite of guilt, and you base you conclusions on your ideas of guilt and responsibility, which are predicated on the idea of separation. Innocence takes on a different connotation if separation is not the truth. You would have it that there can't be intelligence in the absence of the ability to predict outcomes, which is predicated on the idea that a temporal flow of time is a reality. Intelligence takes on a different connotation in the absence of time. The way I'm talking about innocence is in the absence of thoughts culled from the past and projected into the future, which ultimately means the absence of thought. What I mean by intelligence here is simply the source of creation. My point (trying not to draw too much attention to the arm) is that the source of creation cannot think from 'outside' of it's own creation, but only from within. "Next, an intelligence that doesn't think, doesn't choose, predict or plan? Then why even bother calling it intelligent? What are the exact facts that necessitate an intelligent cosmic power?" I didn't call an 'it' intelligent. I referred to the source of creation as intelligence. It's just a way of conceptualizing about the concept of source, and it's not ultimately True, so lets not start defining facts. If the word has too many connotations for you it's not useful in this context. Enigma, you change definitions in such a way that I can't follow you and then base further concepts on these changed definitions. I think it's called poetry. Nobody understands the absence of time, some few physicists maybe can do calculations based on timelessness, but even they don't know what that means, as there is no relation of that to how we experience reality. So I hope you understand how your last two posts make no sense to me. Well, ending creation seems like a pretty drastic solution to an imaginary problem. - Yeah, I know how stupid that is, which is why I try to get rid of any belief involving anything (nondual or otherwise) that resembles God. I don't see any indication that any of that got past your barricades. - Oh, I'm sorry.  |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 13:56:59 GMT -5
Reality is not a concept, how can I not be open to reality? I wish I could live in a purely conceptual world, but it doesn't matter whether my mind is thinking or not, reality still happens. What do you see when you investigate/look at reality? Porto, I don't want to play this game right now. It's a waste of time, you can't win. (I don't mean you personally, just that there is no chain of arguments that can prove what you seem to be believing in or what may be your actual experience.) |
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Sept 25, 2010 14:27:35 GMT -5
I must admit I do love a good b*tch fight. Round and round in circles we go. I'm not having a go question but I do wonder what you are trying to achieve here? Do you want to experience what the likes of enigma & ZD are experiencing or do you just want to debate it and prove that you're right (it's a dead end)? Bear in mind that if you're after the former you'll end up spouting the same sorts of things as them in the end. Question will be dead and buried apart from a few murmerings that you ignore. What do you want to achieve? Just curious.
P.S. Just to add, b*tch without the asterix is changed to pregnant dog. LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Sept 25, 2010 14:42:44 GMT -5
who's hungry? who's up for some grub?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 16:16:20 GMT -5
"Enigma, you change definitions in such a way that I can't follow you and then base further concepts on these changed definitions. I think it's called poetry. Nobody understands the absence of time, some few physicists maybe can do calculations based on timelessness, but even they don't know what that means, as there is no relation of that to how we experience reality. So I hope you understand how your last two posts make no sense to me."
I haven't changed definitions. I just see it differently than you do. I would imagine that if we're talking nondual malarky, it might occur to you that guilt and responsibility and future planning may not apply so well to what we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 16:19:37 GMT -5
P.S. Just to add, b*tch without the asterix is changed to pregnant dog. LOL. Well, son of a pregnant dog!  |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 16:36:41 GMT -5
I must admit I do love a good b*tch fight. Round and round in circles we go. I'm not having a go question but I do wonder what you are trying to achieve here? Do you want to experience what the likes of enigma & ZD are experiencing or do you just want to debate it and prove that you're right (it's a dead end)? Bear in mind that if you're after the former you'll end up spouting the same sorts of things as them in the end. Question will be dead and buried apart from a few murmerings that you ignore. What do you want to achieve? Just curious. P.S. Just to add, b*tch without the asterix is changed to pregnant dog. LOL. ZD and Enigma imply that a nondual experience is better than anything imaginable, so what sane being would not wish to experience something that sounds so wonderful? However, the belief that there are humans who live in paradise 24/7 significantly devalues an ordinary life, which is why I think that it's really unhealthy to go after the experience. At least I try not to, I'd be a fool to define my life by what I don't have or don't experience. I said before that I'm not sure what I'm doing here. I think though, that my main problem is that I am not certain, and living a life in existential abeyance isn't much fun. So if there's one thing I want it's probably clarity. Don't care about who wins, plain and simple clarity is enough. Next, I don't want to prove anything to anyone, who cares about what other people think. I'm sorry if it looks like a b*tch fight, it's not my intention (actually I don't even perceive it as a fight, just a normal discussion, at least by my standards). In my posts I always try to keep on topic. It's just that trying to squeeze useful answers out of nonduality teachers seems to be really difficult and I don't see the questions that I'm asking being asked anywhere. And I'm also pretty sure that there are more people than one might think who really appreciate a tough debate, only they're probably afraid to ask because it feels like questioning a holy man's authority or somesuch thing and sadly everyone tries to avoid confrontation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 18:30:09 GMT -5
I must admit I do love a good b*tch fight. Round and round in circles we go. I'm not having a go question but I do wonder what you are trying to achieve here? Do you want to experience what the likes of enigma & ZD are experiencing or do you just want to debate it and prove that you're right (it's a dead end)? Bear in mind that if you're after the former you'll end up spouting the same sorts of things as them in the end. Question will be dead and buried apart from a few murmerings that you ignore. What do you want to achieve? Just curious. P.S. Just to add, b*tch without the asterix is changed to pregnant dog. LOL. ZD and Enigma imply that a nondual experience is better than anything imaginable, so what sane being would not wish to experience something that sounds so wonderful? However, the belief that there are humans who live in paradise 24/7 significantly devalues an ordinary life, which is why I think that it's really unhealthy to go after the experience. At least I try not to, I'd be a fool to define my life by what I don't have or don't experience. I said before that I'm not sure what I'm doing here. I think though, that my main problem is that I am not certain, and living a life in existential abeyance isn't much fun. So if there's one thing I want it's probably clarity. Don't care about who wins, plain and simple clarity is enough. Next, I don't want to prove anything to anyone, who cares about what other people think. I'm sorry if it looks like a b*tch fight, it's not my intention (actually I don't even perceive it as a fight, just a normal discussion, at least by my standards). In my posts I always try to keep on topic. It's just that trying to squeeze useful answers out of nonduality teachers seems to be really difficult and I don't see the questions that I'm asking being asked anywhere. And I'm also pretty sure that there are more people than one might think who really appreciate a tough debate, only they're probably afraid to ask because it feels like questioning a holy man's authority or somesuch thing and sadly everyone tries to avoid confrontation. Just to be clear: * I never say anything about nondual experience, except maybe that there isn't one. * No human lives in paradise. * I also don't see a pregnant dog fight, or anything other than a discussion. * If anyone perceives some holy men here, they're only slightly more deluded than the average person. * I reject the label of teacher for multiple reasons. * I agree that folks tend to avoid confrontation, though it's usually because it doesn't fit in with their self image. |
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Sept 25, 2010 18:58:25 GMT -5
Thank you Frankshank... ;-)
Question... if you want clarity then you have something to look at...examine your thoughts and find out what is true..it is not any more complicated or simple than that....its a place to start....
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Sept 27, 2010 4:28:46 GMT -5
I must admit I do love a good b*tch fight. Round and round in circles we go. I'm not having a go question but I do wonder what you are trying to achieve here? Do you want to experience what the likes of enigma & ZD are experiencing or do you just want to debate it and prove that you're right (it's a dead end)? Bear in mind that if you're after the former you'll end up spouting the same sorts of things as them in the end. Question will be dead and buried apart from a few murmerings that you ignore. What do you want to achieve? Just curious. P.S. Just to add, b*tch without the asterix is changed to pregnant dog. LOL. ZD and Enigma imply that a nondual experience is better than anything imaginable, so what sane being would not wish to experience something that sounds so wonderful? However, the belief that there are humans who live in paradise 24/7 significantly devalues an ordinary life, which is why I think that it's really unhealthy to go after the experience. At least I try not to, I'd be a fool to define my life by what I don't have or don't experience. I said before that I'm not sure what I'm doing here. I think though, that my main problem is that I am not certain, and living a life in existential abeyance isn't much fun. So if there's one thing I want it's probably clarity. Don't care about who wins, plain and simple clarity is enough. Next, I don't want to prove anything to anyone, who cares about what other people think. I'm sorry if it looks like a b*tch fight, it's not my intention (actually I don't even perceive it as a fight, just a normal discussion, at least by my standards). In my posts I always try to keep on topic. It's just that trying to squeeze useful answers out of nonduality teachers seems to be really difficult and I don't see the questions that I'm asking being asked anywhere. And I'm also pretty sure that there are more people than one might think who really appreciate a tough debate, only they're probably afraid to ask because it feels like questioning a holy man's authority or somesuch thing and sadly everyone tries to avoid confrontation. I was referring to it as a pregnant dog fight in a very light hearted way really. It did seem with you claiming to feel anger at one point and using a crying emoticon in response to enigma as though there was a bit of heat though. I like the way you challenge the likes of ZD & enigma but I do wonder whether it's helping you. The debates can be very interesting but I more often than not feel as though I'm being taken away from what is being pointed to. |
|
