|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 3:15:57 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. So if you are reading E, the main problem with your statement is that it forms a comparison. 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'. You miss the point because you're not listening, and you're not listening because you're so certain of your knowledge and grasp so tightly to it while preaching to others about mind having nothing to hang it's hat on. I know that contradiction doesn't bother you because you've embraced your own paradoxical confusion, but it sure makes for difficult communication. I don't think I have missed the point at all. Your conclusion draws a comparison, doesn't it? A comparison between ultimate and contextual. The mind grabs hold of this duality and runs with it. What you are doing is telling people that a) no thought is ultimately true, and b) believing contextual beliefs to be true is okay. Thing is that EVERY darn belief is contextual! And because every belief is contextual, it means that what you are selling is ' the known', when really what we should be selling or working towards is ' the unknown'. At some point you have got to drop the presupposition out of which your conclusion was formed. As I said, the look and see process inherently begins with a duality and ends with a duality, so using this process in this exploration is not the way forward. The duality of truth/falsity cannot be transcended with the ''look and see'' approach.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 3:18:09 GMT -5
I don't see you experiencing confusion so I would say that figuring a way out of confusion leads to more confusion unless the mind finds a very very clever way to justify believing any thought it wants to be true. The way to do that is to hold 2 particular core beliefs which I have already stated. That's not a clarity of not-knowing though, that is a clarity of knowing stuff. You're right, I'm not confused. As I say, clarity is the goal, not confusion. Yes, but there are 2 types of clarity, there is a clarity which comes from knowing stuff, which is a very fragile clarity unless the mind finds a clever way to reinforce the fortress, or there is a clarity of not-knowing, which is a more stable clarity because it is not dependent on knowing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 3:42:14 GMT -5
You miss the point because you're not listening, and you're not listening because you're so certain of your knowledge and grasp so tightly to it while preaching to others about mind having nothing to hang it's hat on. I know that contradiction doesn't bother you because you've embraced your own paradoxical confusion, but it sure makes for difficult communication. I don't think I have missed the point at all. Your conclusion draws a comparison, doesn't it? No. You've missed the point repeatedly, so it's time to surrender to the ultimate futility of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 3:46:37 GMT -5
I don't think I have missed the point at all. Your conclusion draws a comparison, doesn't it? No. You've missed the point repeatedly, so it's time to surrender to the ultimate futility of the situation. I haven't missed the point. You are selling mind reinforcement, when deconstruction is the way forward. On the surface it seems as if you are selling deconstruction but you really aren't. The clarity you advocate is not the clarity of not-knowing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 3:47:01 GMT -5
You're right, I'm not confused. As I say, clarity is the goal, not confusion. Yes, but there are 2 types of clarity, there is a clarity which comes from knowing stuff, which is a very fragile clarity unless the mind finds a clever way to reinforce the fortress, or there is a clarity of not-knowing, which is a more stable clarity because it is not dependent on knowing stuff. Yeah, Niz used to start his Satsangs with 'Ya know, I'm so clear that I dunno nuthin, so y'all might as well go home.' ;D
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 3:49:15 GMT -5
Yes, but there are 2 types of clarity, there is a clarity which comes from knowing stuff, which is a very fragile clarity unless the mind finds a clever way to reinforce the fortress, or there is a clarity of not-knowing, which is a more stable clarity because it is not dependent on knowing stuff. Yeah, Niz used to start his Satsangs with 'Ya know, I'm so clear that I dunno nuthin, so y'all might as well go home.' ;D As I have said, not-knowing and clarity is not about knowing that I know nothing. Paradoxically, not-knowing does include the possibility of knowing something. Its all about 'possibility'. Just take a look at what I'm saying. Take a look at the comparison of ultimate/contextual. Take a look at the implication of the comparison (or duality). Take a look at the 2 core beliefs. Take a look at the boundary of the ''look and see'' approach. Notice how al of it keeps the mind locked into 'the known'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 4:04:49 GMT -5
Yeah, Niz used to start his Satsangs with 'Ya know, I'm so clear that I dunno nuthin, so y'all might as well go home.' ;D As I have said, not-knowing and clarity is not about knowing that I know nothing. Paradoxically, not-knowing does include the possibility of knowing something. Its all about 'possibility'. You've got to be kidding. I don't have any interest in looking at your fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 4:16:29 GMT -5
As I have said, not-knowing and clarity is not about knowing that I know nothing. Paradoxically, not-knowing does include the possibility of knowing something. Its all about 'possibility'. You've got to be kidding. I don't have any interest in looking at your fantasies. Unfortunately you are not open at all to the possibility that you have been barking up the wrong tree for a number of years. No, I'm not kidding that not-knowing is about possibility. When the mind has no need to buy into one side of a duality (i.e. when there is no need to believe in the duality of truth/falsity), the position we are left in is a fully open 'maybe' position. This may sound on the surface to be a wishy washy position, but its not, its a very aligned position. So this 'maybe' can manifest in strong ways, and I see that it may seem as if I am bought into positions because I can be strong in my arguments, but that's the nature of the 'maybe' position. It allows for the possibility of being certain, it allows for the possibility of saying a firm 'Yes' or 'No', it allows for the possibility of knowing something, it allows for the possibility of telling someone that what they are saying is 'true' or 'false'. I think we can agree that Zen masters can be very strong at times. Niz is another great example.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 4:21:51 GMT -5
You've got to be kidding. I don't have any interest in looking at your fantasies. Unfortunately you are not open at all to the possibility that you have been barking up the wrong tree for a number of years. No, I'm not kidding that not-knowing is about possibility. When the mind has no need to buy into one side of a duality (i.e. when there is no need to believe in the duality of truth/falsity), the position we are left in is a fully open 'maybe' position. This may sound on the surface to be a wishy washy position, but its not, its a very aligned position. So this 'maybe' can manifest in strong ways, and I see that it may seem as if I am bought into positions because I can be strong in my arguments, but that's the nature of the 'maybe' position. It allows for the possibility of being certain, it allows for the possibility of saying a firm 'Yes' or 'No', it allows for the possibility of knowing something, it allows for the possibility of telling someone that what they are saying is 'true' or 'false'. I think we can agree that Zen masters can be very strong at times. Niz is another great example. Right, because they have certainty instead of confusion, clarity instead of paradoxical maybes.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 4:28:31 GMT -5
Unfortunately you are not open at all to the possibility that you have been barking up the wrong tree for a number of years. No, I'm not kidding that not-knowing is about possibility. When the mind has no need to buy into one side of a duality (i.e. when there is no need to believe in the duality of truth/falsity), the position we are left in is a fully open 'maybe' position. This may sound on the surface to be a wishy washy position, but its not, its a very aligned position. So this 'maybe' can manifest in strong ways, and I see that it may seem as if I am bought into positions because I can be strong in my arguments, but that's the nature of the 'maybe' position. It allows for the possibility of being certain, it allows for the possibility of saying a firm 'Yes' or 'No', it allows for the possibility of knowing something, it allows for the possibility of telling someone that what they are saying is 'true' or 'false'. I think we can agree that Zen masters can be very strong at times. Niz is another great example. Right, because they have certainty instead of confusion, clarity instead of paradoxical maybes. No, they have clarity rather than certainty/confusion, and they have clarity because they are open to both certainty and confusion. You have yet to embrace/allow confusion because your mind has found a way to reinforce the fortress so that there never is any confusion. The 2 core beliefs you hold to be true ensure that there is no confusion, though I imagine my challenge of them probably isn't that pleasant. Your mind HAS to reject what I am saying rather than look closely at how it has found a way to stay solidly in 'the known'. Its all in the comparison/duality between ultimate/contextual. Its all in the 2 core beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by figgy on Oct 12, 2012 11:23:40 GMT -5
Right, because they have certainty instead of confusion, clarity instead of paradoxical maybes. No, they have clarity rather than certainty/confusion, and they have clarity because they are open to both certainty and confusion. You have yet to embrace/allow confusion because your mind has found a way to reinforce the fortress so that there never is any confusion. The 2 core beliefs you hold to be true ensure that there is no confusion, though I imagine my challenge of them probably isn't that pleasant. Your mind HAS to reject what I am saying rather than look closely at how it has found a way to stay solidly in 'the known'. Its all in the comparison/duality between ultimate/contextual. Its all in the 2 core beliefs. Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.)..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2012 12:25:39 GMT -5
No, they have clarity rather than certainty/confusion, and they have clarity because they are open to both certainty and confusion. You have yet to embrace/allow confusion because your mind has found a way to reinforce the fortress so that there never is any confusion. The 2 core beliefs you hold to be true ensure that there is no confusion, though I imagine my challenge of them probably isn't that pleasant. Your mind HAS to reject what I am saying rather than look closely at how it has found a way to stay solidly in 'the known'. Its all in the comparison/duality between ultimate/contextual. Its all in the 2 core beliefs. Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. Yes, that's it. Thanks for your 'take' Figgy, I think you have a great talent for succinctly and lucidly explaining the ins and outs of all this spiritual stuff. And to be clear, E, I also think you have wonderful insight...there's just this one incy wincy little problem.....!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Oct 12, 2012 14:46:54 GMT -5
No, they have clarity rather than certainty/confusion, and they have clarity because they are open to both certainty and confusion. You have yet to embrace/allow confusion because your mind has found a way to reinforce the fortress so that there never is any confusion. The 2 core beliefs you hold to be true ensure that there is no confusion, though I imagine my challenge of them probably isn't that pleasant. Your mind HAS to reject what I am saying rather than look closely at how it has found a way to stay solidly in 'the known'. Its all in the comparison/duality between ultimate/contextual. Its all in the 2 core beliefs. Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. Snake.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 14:52:00 GMT -5
There is no truth, which of course is what I mean when I say nothing is ultimately true. But you don't know with certainty that there is no solid foundation, because you have become comfy with not having certainty. OTOH, I do have such certainty because I realize there is no solid foundation. How many times have you heard me say everything collapses into a little greasy spot? Does that sound like a solid foundation to you? Infinite potential is the case now and always. While I'm certain of that, for you it is apparently just another story. Realization is not a story. A realization exposes an illusion, it doesn't give you new ideas to play with. My God, neither of you even knows what a realization is. That explains much. Yes, you like your stories, just like Andrew, and you justify them by saying anything is possible, as though the universe is just waiting to hear your personal story so that it can play along.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2012 14:53:56 GMT -5
Just nodding along in affirmation with your series of posts here Andrew. Yes, it's all about the cessation of need to know that I am seeing beyond 'the story.' And with this cessation of need comes a sense of being okay with the possibility of never knowing with certainty what the 'truth' actually is...it's a place where we become comfortable with the possibility that there is no such thing as truth....it's a place where the delineation between truth and not, becomes irrelevant. It's a seeing that so long as experience is happening, there will always be 'a story' and that even this seeing, is in itself, another story...and so on and so on and so on...... When we come to this place of being comfortable with not knowing with certainty, we make peace with the idea that there is no solid foundation from which experience springs forth, but rather, the sands beneath are always flowing and shifting. At the juncture where E is currently perceiving from, everything is done to avoid the sense of residing upon shifting ground. It's a place of seeking a firm, solid foundation from which to anchor one's vantage point. And, it's tough to venture forth from this place of knowing with certainty, as it's a place that feels very comforting and reassuring, however, it is also a place of stagnation in terms of 'possibility.' AT this juncture, we cling to 'realizations' (those stories that appeal to a sense that we are seeing from a place of higher seeing and crystal clarity), but when we really get right down to it, we eventually see that a 'realization' is actually just an extra compelling and convincing 'story'. When we come to see that it's ALL a story, even this!, we enter into the realm where anything truly is possible..... & That's MY story and I'm stickin' to it, (because it serves my highest values of having an experience brimming with love, peace, ease, joy, beauty.).. Yes, that's it. Thanks for your 'take' Figgy, I think you have a great talent for succinctly and lucidly explaining the ins and outs of all this spiritual stuff. And to be clear, E, I also think you have wonderful insight...there's just this one incy wincy little problem.....! Yeah, it doesn't agree with yours. ;D
|
|