|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2012 2:33:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure I see an backpeddling following the conclusion that 'no thought is ultimately true', I think probably what happened is that the conclusion was formed out of a presupposition/belief that was already in place i.e. that there are relative or contextual truths ( that 'there is context'). From that position of believing that 'there is context', a conclusion has then been drawn that says...'Although there are contextual/relative truths, no thought is ultimately true'. Its the only reason why the word 'ultimately' would be in the statement, it is used to form a comparison, which the mind says 'hooray' to, because where there is comparison, there is duality. Yeah, ok, now I see what you mean here. So fine, lose the word "ultimately" and it boils down to "no thought is true" and then the self-referential paradox emerges from the statement all the more quickly and clearly. There's no way to either believe or disbelieve the statement and maintain logical consistency. Thats fine ... it's the difference between turning your back on physics (with the qualifier "ultimately") or going a step further and also turning your back on mathematics (without it). Enigma once told me that he didn't follow me in this thread, and in thinking about how best to re-convey it, I came to this conclusion ... translated between all four threads, the thought I didn't enunciate then was that it is in the conception of the circle itself where the mathematician errs. ie: the first cut is the deepest. I do agree that the mind is a useful tool, and engaging with the duality of truth/falsity is part of our lives, but I see the idea of 'relative truths' or 'contextual truths' as a contradiction in terms, a misnomer even. I can't find a context in which I would say that something is relatively or contextually true, I do speak of something being true, and I do speak of relativity/context, but I wouldn't say something is 'relatively/contextually true'. Well, and forgive me if you've already stated this in the rest of the thread, but this seems to imply that you subscribe to some sort of "ultimate truth"... ... please refine my understanding of what you're saying if this isn't the case. No I don't subscribe to a universal truth, at most I would say I subscribe to a kind of universal 'non-truth', which isn't a truth as such and so cannot actually be 'subscribed' too. I don't find it easy to describe what it is, aside from using the word 'paradox', but its almost as if its non-conclusiveness, its total open ended-ness, provides us with an answer or proof, but not a firm kind of mathematical answer/proof, because there is no closure. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. I can do something with this'. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. I certainly think that 'no thought is true' is less problematic and more helpful than 'no thought is ultimately true', but at the time I questioned this too because it still left me with a knowing and a sense of closure, a sense that mind had 'found' something. I could see that there was still room for questioning. So when I kept going, I eventually came to a pointless point when there was no way forward for the questioning. My mind was left spinning, and this very spin illustrated a strange kind of non-answer that differs from an answer mainly because there is nothing to be done with it, or from it. The first cut is the deepest'. Yes. I understand. I like the song too. I have got a lot out of E's words in the last 3 years, his words have probably stimulated in me more deep thinking than anyone else's, and I know 'deep thinking' isn't always a popular sell on this forum, but I don't think its always a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2012 4:32:12 GMT -5
I recalled this morning something from the Conversations with God books, which 'God' described as 'living within the contradiction'. Browsing the books, this little excerpt from book 3 made me chuckle...
***
God: I am often called The Unmoved Mover. I am that which is Always Moving and has Never Moved, Is Always Changing and has Never Changed.
Neale: Okay, I get it. Nothing is absolute with you.
God: Except that everything is absolute.
Neale: Unless its not.
God: Exactly. Precisely. You do ''get it''. Bravo.
Neale: Well, the truth is, I think I have always understood this stuff.
God: Yes.
Neale: Except when I haven't.
God: That's right.
Neale: Unless its not.
God: Exactly.
Neale: So you're Abbott and I'm Costello, and it's all just a comic vaudeville show.
God: Except when it's not. There are moment and events you may want to take very seriously.
Neale: Unless I don't.
God: Unless you don't.
Neale: So returning again to the subject of souls....
God: Boy, that's a great title there...The Subject of Souls.
Neale: Maybe we'll do that one.
God: Are you kidding? We already have.
Neale: Unless we haven't.
God: That's true.
Neale: Unless its not.
God: You never know.
Neale: Except when you do.
God: You see? You are getting this. You're remembering now how it really is , and you're having fun with it! You're returning now to 'living lightly'. You're lightening up. This is what is meant by 'enlightenment'.
|
|
|
Post by figgy on Oct 13, 2012 12:56:57 GMT -5
I recalled this morning something from the Conversations with God books, which 'God' described as 'living within the contradiction'. Browsing the books, this little excerpt from book 3 made me chuckle... *** God: I am often called The Unmoved Mover. I am that which is Always Moving and has Never Moved, Is Always Changing and has Never Changed. Neale: Okay, I get it. Nothing is absolute with you. God: Except that everything is absolute. Neale: Unless its not. God: Exactly. Precisely. You do ''get it''. Bravo. Neale: Well, the truth is, I think I have always understood this stuff. God: Yes. Neale: Except when I haven't. God: That's right. Neale: Unless its not. God: Exactly. Neale: So you're Abbott and I'm Costello, and it's all just a comic vaudeville show. God: Except when it's not. There are moment and events you may want to take very seriously. Neale: Unless I don't. God: Unless you don't. Neale: So returning again to the subject of souls.... God: Boy, that's a great title there...The Subject of Souls. Neale: Maybe we'll do that one. God: Are you kidding? We already have. Neale: Unless we haven't. God: That's true. Neale: Unless its not. God: You never know. Neale: Except when you do. God: You see? You are getting this. You're remembering now how it really is , and you're having fun with it! You're returning now to 'living lightly'. You're lightening up. This is what is meant by 'enlightenment'. What a wonderful example of what we're talking about here. "Living lightly".....that is so perfect...can't think of a more concise or descriptive term to describe this "flexibility" thing. When there's no attachment to anything in particular as being true, there's nothing to weigh us down...no place to get mired in a thought that could drag us into a divergence from the sense that all is profoundly well and good.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Oct 13, 2012 15:54:19 GMT -5
Do you also see ZD as rigid and inflexible because he rarely changes his point of view on things? Do you see Niz and Ramana as inflexible because they keep saying the same things over and over. I'm not comparing myself to anyone, just suggesting that realization is not a perspective or opinion, and therefore doesn't change with the wind. Yeah I see them all as rigid and inflexible at times as well. But who isn't? I certainly am in my own way. I will probably never be one to promote sitting and meditating as a means to awaking. I don't see the point as meditating isn't needed to realize. But I do recognize that meditation IS the right path for some. I was trying to get Figs or whoever I wrote that to, to look in-ward and see if it was their own rigidity that caused them to say how you were closed minded. I was actually going to bat for ya. ;D
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Oct 13, 2012 16:11:04 GMT -5
Because you talked about E being set in some story and then explained how it's all stories, almost negating the point you just made. Atlanis Morissette old song comes to mind..... "The fig-ster, said E was a rock, stuck in his ways, had ideas on lock Then figgy explained, the truth behind it all And how even his own words, were a story, one could call, Isn't it ironic......." This belongs in the bad poetry thread. hahaha
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Oct 13, 2012 16:31:19 GMT -5
Yes. This is indeed a current anchor point of mine. However, I see it for what it is. A 'boundary' that creates a certain kind of experience. AS I am very pleased with the type of experience that this boundary helps to provide, I'll continue to engage with it. If at any point I prefer a different type of experience, I'm free to revisit this anchor point and re-asses it. All 'anchor points' are really just 'current stories.' E is probably the same way you are. He found his boundary and continues to engage with it. I'm sure he would re-evaluate his anchor points if something changed for him. But as he stated in a response to my comments to you, which I agree with, once realization of this happens, everything is anchored in THIS so there is only change in expression of THIS on the level of form, no "real" change. (Which subsequently gives off the appears of rigidity and stubbornness when mincing words) E feel free to correct me if I misunderstood what you said by the way. Sure. To hold an opinion on anything is to engage somewhat with a story. The only question is; how tenaciously are we clinging to that story as being 'true'? How strong is our NEED to know it is true? If we're hanging on tightly, we will have trouble seeing past it. It's all about the level of flexibility to move and flow from one perspective or boundary of seeing to another. Yes and no. There is no flexibility needed to be. Just spending time pondering on "is this a story" can be a story in its self. And it re-enforces the story of self. It re-enforces the idea that there is someone here to be flexible or inflexible.
|
|
|
Post by figgy on Oct 13, 2012 19:36:33 GMT -5
E is probably the same way you are. He found his boundary and continues to engage with it. I'm sure he would re-evaluate his anchor points if something changed for him. There will continue to be 'anchor points' however, depending upon whether or not we can actually see them and whether or not we're willing to honestly acknowledge them, those anchor points can be like steel traps that we're welded into, or just a place of current seeing. It all depends upon how tenaciously we're clinging to a truth. The difference between the two is the level of flexibility that is possible, and the difference between flexibility of position/vantage point and rigidity, is in the quality of experience....our ability to 'live lightly'....to experience abundant joy. There's always some kind of anchor point in terms of present vantage point, the questions is; can we see it for what it is and are we tethered to it or could we easily and without grasping, move beyond it to see from another angle? Right. WE can remain as rigid as cold steel and will continue to 'be,' however, the quality of experience...the 'kind' of life experience will be very, very different than if there is flexibility. For those who have convinced themselves that they don't care about quality of life experience, but who are instead, placing the attainment of 'truth' above that, flexibility will not seem to be important. I dunno. Doesn't seeing that it's all story, also make it clear that the central character is just that, a character within the story? The benefit of seeing that it's all a story is that all facets of life, are taken less seriously, regarded in a light of acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 13, 2012 23:59:00 GMT -5
Do you also see ZD as rigid and inflexible because he rarely changes his point of view on things? Do you see Niz and Ramana as inflexible because they keep saying the same things over and over. I'm not comparing myself to anyone, just suggesting that realization is not a perspective or opinion, and therefore doesn't change with the wind. Yeah I see them all as rigid and inflexible at times as well. But who isn't? I certainly am in my own way. I will probably never be one to promote sitting and meditating as a means to awaking. I don't see the point as meditating isn't needed to realize. But I do recognize that meditation IS the right path for some. I was trying to get Figs or whoever I wrote that to, to look in-ward and see if it was their own rigidity that caused them to say how you were closed minded. I was actually going to bat for ya. ;D That's cool n all, but really it just seemed like the characterization of the human mind as universally rigid doesn't fit in well with my rigid programming. ;D If nothing else it makes the term meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2012 7:20:16 GMT -5
When there's no attachment to anything in particular as being true, there's nothing to weigh us down...no place to get mired in a thought that could drag us into a divergence from the sense that all is profoundly well and good. yup yup.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2012 8:01:22 GMT -5
No I don't subscribe to a universal truth, at most I would say I subscribe to a kind of universal 'non-truth', which isn't a truth as such and so cannot actually be 'subscribed' too. I don't find it easy to describe what it is, aside from using the word 'paradox', but its almost as if its non-conclusiveness, its total open ended-ness, provides us with an answer or proof, but not a firm kind of mathematical answer/proof, because there is no closure. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. I can do something with this'. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. Thanks for taking the time to express that. I could have written something very similar to it myself. (... phew! ... for a minute there I was ready to resort to "I hereby incorporate by reference all arguments presented in the spring 2012 'silence' thread" ... ;D...)
I have got a lot out of E's words in the last 3 years, his words have probably stimulated in me more deep thinking than anyone else's, and I know 'deep thinking' isn't always a popular sell on this forum, but I don't think its always a bad thing. Hey, the mind is what it is and these times are what they are. Sometimes fighting fire with fire seems the only option. I posted this about him once before, and to reiterate, while he's probably (... or ... "prolly" ...) the first one to disclaim the need for any sympathy, I find it quite apt anyway: I certainly think that 'no thought is true' is less problematic and more helpful than 'no thought is ultimately true', but at the time I questioned this too because it still left me with a knowing and a sense of closure, a sense that mind had 'found' something. I could see that there was still room for questioning. So when I kept going, I eventually came to a pointless point when there was no way forward for the questioning. My mind was left spinning, and this very spin illustrated a strange kind of non-answer that differs from an answer mainly because there is nothing to be done with it, or from it. Yes, I wouldn't express this as taking some sort of comfort in ambiguity but as simply experiencing an absence of accompanying anxiety. Belief in a paradox is an oxymoron. There's nothing there to embrace but a puff of smoke. My mind encountered the paradox years before I read Tolle (... and then ... *whatever* ...). The mind can carve out many versions of it from the fabric of life. "After" Tolle, the paradox started making sense to me. Thank Mr. G for the internet is all I have to say. In corresponding with others "further along" so to speak, the imperative of questioning any and all belief came to light. Enigma was one of those for sure. One of my correspondents suggested "The Iron Cow of Zen" written in the 1980's by an American Zen master, Albert Low. This is a book written in almost poetic, Kerouac style, centered around two lines: "in seeing One there are Two", and "Arouse the mind without resting it on anything". Following that second as an admonition, and triggered by a private debate with a Ruthless Truther I wound up unstrapping the boat from my back that had gotten me across the river, so to speak. The boat I'm referring to isn't the recognition of the materialist assumption -- the mind had taken care of that for itself pre-Tolle -- but to the spiritual speculation ... One Mind, One Consciousness. Without that, now, it's as you said: There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. And there's no continued search for one ... there was an almost melancholy wistfulness in seeing that ghost depart when he did.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2012 8:42:17 GMT -5
No I don't subscribe to a universal truth, at most I would say I subscribe to a kind of universal 'non-truth', which isn't a truth as such and so cannot actually be 'subscribed' too. I don't find it easy to describe what it is, aside from using the word 'paradox', but its almost as if its non-conclusiveness, its total open ended-ness, provides us with an answer or proof, but not a firm kind of mathematical answer/proof, because there is no closure. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. I can do something with this'. There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. Thanks for taking the time to express that. I could have written something very similar to it myself. (... phew! ... for a minute there I was ready to resort to "I hereby incorporate by reference all arguments presented in the spring 2012 'silence' thread" ... ;D...)
Hey, the mind is what it is and these times are what they are. Sometimes fighting fire with fire seems the only option. I posted this about him once before, and to reiterate, while he's probably (... or ... "prolly" ...) the first one to disclaim the need for any sympathy, I find it quite apt anyway: Yes, I wouldn't express this as taking some sort of comfort in ambiguity but as simply experiencing an absence of accompanying anxiety. Belief in a paradox is an oxymoron. There's nothing there to embrace but a puff of smoke.My mind encountered the paradox years before I read Tolle (... and then ... *whatever* ...). The mind can carve out many versions of it from the fabric of life. "After" Tolle, the paradox started making sense to me. Thank Mr. G for the internet is all I have to say. In corresponding with others "further along" so to speak, the imperative of questioning any and all belief came to light. Enigma was one of those for sure. One of my correspondents suggested "The Iron Cow of Zen" written in the 1980's by an American Zen master, Albert Low. This is a book written in almost poetic, Kerouac style, centered around two lines: "in seeing One there are Two", and "Arouse the mind without resting it on anything". Following that second as an admonition, and triggered by a private debate with a Ruthless Truther I wound up unstrapping the boat from my back that had gotten me across the river, so to speak. The boat I'm referring to isn't the recognition of the materialist assumption -- the mind had taken care of that for itself pre-Tolle -- but to the spiritual speculation ... One Mind, One Consciousness. Without that, now, it's as you said: There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. And there's no continued search for one ... there was an almost melancholy wistfulness in seeing that ghost depart when he did. Cool. I understand. What you said at the end there reminds me that for a while, I experienced a sense of deep loss at there being no more loss to experience hehe. I particularly liked the bit I highlighted. The internet was a blessing for me too. My path really began while in counselling...after a few months I walked in one day, sat down and said....''this is going to sound odd, but I think I have got to let go of my mind!''. He looked at me with a very odd look on his face. At this point I had no reference for enlightenment, Buddhism or anything like that. A couple of years after that I discovered Tolle, and he helped me a lot, though I still had no real sense that there was anyone out there apart from a few freaks like me that were doing anything as absurd as 'letting go of their mind'. Eventually I stumbled on an internet forum called 'worldofsouls' and it helped me a lot to be able to really begin to discuss this stuff with other people, and I think the internet has been of massive value to many spiritual explorers.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Oct 14, 2012 11:38:04 GMT -5
[quote author=andrew board=misc thre. ...In seeing One there are Two.. ...In seeing One there are Two... Nominated for the pearl of the day
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 14, 2012 11:55:21 GMT -5
There is nothing for mind to say...'Ah. Now I have the answer'. And there's no continued search for one ... there was an almost melancholy wistfulness in seeing that ghost depart when he did. Same here. It's like, "Bye, Me"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2012 15:59:22 GMT -5
And there's no continued search for one ... there was an almost melancholy wistfulness in seeing that ghost depart when he did. Same here. It's like, "Bye, Me" From reading what others have written the emotions vary quite a bit. Personally, I don't know (and at least right now, have no interest in knowing or not-knowing or whatever) if I've really made that final farewell. If anything, over here, it's been much much more about relief than sorrow. That guy never really held himself in high esteem anyway.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2012 16:05:18 GMT -5
[quote author=andrew board=misc thre. ...In seeing One there are Two.. ...In seeing One there are Two... Nominated for the pearl of the day ;D *** takes to the stage grinning, takes a bow and then grabs the mic, giving only the cursory glance at his introducer demanded by polite custom.... thank you! thank! thank you! *** ;D Yeah the grain of sand, the core irritant, on that particular pearl is obviously the oxymoronic nature that the mind can ascribe to the word "nonduality" if it investigates it with the tools at hand. Like I said, blame this guy ... but for the reasons stated above I'll instead consider him with gratitude. edit: as I recall now there was a third core aphorism that he kept coming back to in the book ... something about the eventual ethereal impermanence of anything clung to as a "center".
|
|