|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 9, 2013 8:03:29 GMT -5
I disagree, sir. Most all activity reported in the news is concept-based juggling, i.e. suicide bombers often (if not always) have a firmly held belief based on juggling some other belief. So let's say Mrs. Bomber believes the concept that her religion is the only true religion. If there's violence in Mrs. Bomber, the original belief can very easily get morphed in "kill the infidels". Concepts are nice and flexible like that. Change the concepts and you'll just get some new juggling acts. Nothing really changes. This conversation is an example of such an act. I'll add that to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change. (very late edit) The other two words that could have equally applied are of course "predator drone". Anything additional will require use of the <andrew> tag and the entire thread should be wrapped with <tmt>. Sorry, laughy - I missed this post. Not sure how this conversation is concept-based juggling. Well, any more than any conversation is. Cut me some slack, I had only two words to go on!  I'm curious about two things. The first is - in what way do you think that a society based on a particular concept (a lofty one, perhaps) would create a situation where suicide bombers and predator drones don't exist? The other thing is, I don't understand your statement "to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change". Not that I was campaigning for denying the conceptual. I was trying to say, in effect, that the only real change comes from change in each individual's heart. I.e., as long as there's violence in us, any concept can be used to justify violence. Not sure how that jibes (or doesn't) with what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 9, 2013 9:22:15 GMT -5
You will have to be more specific about whats been said for you to conclude that I have a belief in nonduality before I could comment. There has been a resonance with the concept not as a truth or a belief in a truth, simply a resonance which has led to an understanding which may be different to yours, and a continuing exploration of the the concept. So it's not true and you don't believe in it but you resonate with it? I don't really know what that means. What, you've never had an intuition? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 9, 2013 9:48:22 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette,
Daodejing Verse 3 according to J. H. McDonald
Sincerely,
The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 9, 2013 10:46:24 GMT -5
So it's not true and you don't believe in it but you resonate with it? I don't really know what that means. Hi silence, For me resonance does not require belief. I dont believe in nonduality its just a concept, an idea, and yet resonance can occur. We are so used to attaching ourselves to ideas and justifying that attachment as a discovery of truth. It is not enough to have a simple resonance without having to justify it. Whats your understanding of a resonance which may have occurred with something in your life? Have you not just resonated with something without having to justify it as a truth. amit The justification piece may not be an overt thought process but I'd say resonance is usually a response to something being perceived as being true. I don't think your exploration of nonduality is happening in some separate zone outside of the evolution of forming new beliefs, no. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 13:15:02 GMT -5
This conversation is an example of such an act. I'll add that to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change. (very late edit) The other two words that could have equally applied are of course "predator drone". Anything additional will require use of the <andrew> tag and the entire thread should be wrapped with <tmt>. Sorry, laughy - I missed this post. Not sure how this conversation is concept-based juggling. Well, any more than any conversation is. Cut me some slack, I had only two words to go on! I'm curious about two things. The first is - in what way do you think that a society based on a particular concept (a lofty one, perhaps) would create a situation where suicide bombers and predator drones don't exist?The other thing is, I don't understand your statement "to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change". Not that I was campaigning for denying the conceptual. I was trying to say, in effect, that the only real change comes from change in each individual's heart. I.e., as long as there's violence in us, any concept can be used to justify violence. Not sure how that jibes (or doesn't) with what you're saying. I don't (there isn't a way that I think of). Your point about how the concepts would rearrange themselves in unintended and unexpected ways is just as valid as the point that I was trying to convey, which is simply that in the context of an individual, the concepts that are presented to that individual shape their behavior. To get to this idea: I don't see how basing anything on concepts would change anything. You first have to posit a context of a society composed of individuals just as to get to my idea you first have to posit an individual and causality. Such is the silly spinning that results from an idea such as "nondual society", and in this, to put it dramaticomically, we become TMT victims. Not that there's anything wrong with that! |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 9, 2013 14:10:40 GMT -5
<MM> Sorry, laughy - I missed this post. Not sure how this conversation is concept-based juggling. Well, any more than any conversation is. Cut me some slack, I had only two words to go on! I'm curious about two things. The first is - in what way do you think that a society based on a particular concept (a lofty one, perhaps) would create a situation where suicide bombers and predator drones don't exist?The other thing is, I don't understand your statement "to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change". Not that I was campaigning for denying the conceptual. I was trying to say, in effect, that the only real change comes from change in each individual's heart. I.e., as long as there's violence in us, any concept can be used to justify violence. Not sure how that jibes (or doesn't) with what you're saying. I don't (there isn't a way that I think of). Your point about how the concepts would rearrange themselves in unintended and unexpected ways is just as valid as the point that I was trying to convey, which is simply that in the context of an individual, the concepts that are presented to that individual shape their behavior. To get to this idea: I don't see how basing anything on concepts would change anything. You first have to posit a context of a society composed of individuals just as to get to my idea you first have to posit an individual and causality. Such is the silly spinning that results from an idea such as "nondual society", and in this, to put it dramaticomically, we become TMT victims. Not that there's anything wrong with that! </MM> Keep that up and your third eye will go blind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 14:25:59 GMT -5
<MM> I don't (there isn't a way that I think of). Your point about how the concepts would rearrange themselves in unintended and unexpected ways is just as valid as the point that I was trying to convey, which is simply that in the context of an individual, the concepts that are presented to that individual shape their behavior. To get to this idea: You first have to posit a context of a society composed of individuals just as to get to my idea you first have to posit an individual and causality. Such is the silly spinning that results from an idea such as "nondual society", and in this, to put it dramaticomically, we become TMT victims. Not that there's anything wrong with that! </MM> Keep that up and your third eye will go blind. Dearest topology, Your concern is indeed quite touching but I assure you that at my age the hairs that grow on my palms are so rough that this activity involves a self-dampening cycle. -- with kind regards |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 9, 2013 16:02:24 GMT -5
Hahahaha! To both of you.  |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 10, 2013 3:40:22 GMT -5
The grass is green; the sky is blue.
:-):-)The idea of a society is an idea. The concept of nonduality is an idea. An idea about an idea about an idea is also an idea.
:-)The mind is a labyrinthe; if one enters, it may be hard to find the way out. *smile*
everything will be alright either way, or not.
I don't know :-)Hi steve, Is there something wrong with exploring ideas in your opinion? amit |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 10, 2013 3:48:50 GMT -5
If i knew how to do that I'd have done it with you  What is the picture of? Hi wren, We run a wilderness campsite in a beautiful wooded river valley with waterfalls and pools to bathe in. We live there under canvass from May to October and that's what I look like after living there for a while playlng a lot of music round campfires. You know what can happen when you start having to much fun:) amit |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 10, 2013 3:57:00 GMT -5
Sorry, laughy - I missed this post. Not sure how this conversation is concept-based juggling. Well, any more than any conversation is. Cut me some slack, I had only two words to go on! I'm curious about two things. The first is - in what way do you think that a society based on a particular concept (a lofty one, perhaps) would create a situation where suicide bombers and predator drones don't exist?The other thing is, I don't understand your statement "to deny the conceptual is to essentially deny change". Not that I was campaigning for denying the conceptual. I was trying to say, in effect, that the only real change comes from change in each individual's heart. I.e., as long as there's violence in us, any concept can be used to justify violence. Not sure how that jibes (or doesn't) with what you're saying. I don't (there isn't a way that I think of). Your point about how the concepts would rearrange themselves in unintended and unexpected ways is just as valid as the point that I was trying to convey, which is simply that in the context of an individual, the concepts that are presented to that individual shape their behavior. To get to this idea: I don't see how basing anything on concepts would change anything. You first have to posit a context of a society composed of individuals just as to get to my idea you first have to posit an individual and causality. Such is the silly spinning that results from an idea such as "nondual society", and in this, to put it dramaticomically, we become TMT victims. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Hi laughter, Yes that would be the case if the condition to not do TMT had to be complied with because someone has the idea it would be a better way of living, and not just for themselves. amit |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 10, 2013 4:00:01 GMT -5
Hi silence, For me resonance does not require belief. I dont believe in nonduality its just a concept, an idea, and yet resonance can occur. We are so used to attaching ourselves to ideas and justifying that attachment as a discovery of truth. It is not enough to have a simple resonance without having to justify it. Whats your understanding of a resonance which may have occurred with something in your life? Have you not just resonated with something without having to justify it as a truth. amit The justification piece may not be an overt thought process but I'd say resonance is usually a response to something being perceived as being true. I don't think your exploration of nonduality is happening in some separate zone outside of the evolution of forming new beliefs, no. Hi quinn, Yes if that's what resonance means for you. Its nothing like that for me. amit |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 9:52:14 GMT -5
Hi steve, Is there something wrong with exploring ideas in your opinion? amit Well, as I said in the post that you quoted, everything will be okay either way...or not. I don't know. :-) I can tell you that I'm not in an "exploring of ideas" phase of my existence....it might be closer to say that in a very limited way I am in a choosing of ideas phase, but that for the most part, I'm in an "I know that I don't know" phase, seemingly moving toward just an "I don't know that I don't know" phase LMAO It all seems to be throwing me back to a kind of grace filled stillness, where the only idea that still remains is God, but I don't find myself exploring that idea, more like just residing in the bliss and gratitude of it....sometimes that's not even there. Use to be that residing in stillness would provide clarity in seeing "what is" as TZU would probably say, now it's not about seeing "what is" with the clarity of stillness....it's not about anything, nothing to see, nothing to do... Whether exploring ideas is right or wrong? I have no idea... I hope that doesn't help to clarify anyone's position :-) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2013 11:36:25 GMT -5
I don't (there isn't a way that I think of). Your point about how the concepts would rearrange themselves in unintended and unexpected ways is just as valid as the point that I was trying to convey, which is simply that in the context of an individual, the concepts that are presented to that individual shape their behavior. To get to this idea: You first have to posit a context of a society composed of individuals just as to get to my idea you first have to posit an individual and causality. Such is the silly spinning that results from an idea such as "nondual society", and in this, to put it dramaticomically, we become TMT victims. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Hi laughter, Yes that would be the case if the condition to not do TMT had to be complied with because someone has the idea it would be a better way of living, and not just for themselves. amit Yes, there is nothing shameful about TMT, it's just that it points away from what the seeker is looking for ... of course what the seeker is looking for is found in all directions so all I can do to illustrate what I mean by that is to resort to indirection and metaphor ... for example, "love" is used as a pointer but "hate" is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jun 10, 2013 19:13:42 GMT -5
All that I can do is tell you what I have been shown about the world that is possible for us. We are still in the time of choosing. Heaven is not some reward for good little boys and girls after we die. Heaven is a state of consciousness that we can bring on here and now if we are willing to do the personal clearing work to bring on the personal awakening. The Garden of Eden is not a place on this Earth, it is the whole Earth. When our consciousness changes the Earth will reflect that change back at us.
War will end, harming other people will end, and abuse will also end. While we are in duality consciousness we are cut off from feeling what other people feel. When we are fully awakened and in non-duality consciousness we are connected to people places and things. Who is going to push a button that kills thousands of people when they have to feel each and every death as if it were their own. Politicians and corporate leaders will not be in positions of power if they have ill intent, because their true intent will be clearly read by all.
|
|
