|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 10:58:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's a lot of selfs hiding in this rabbit hole, out-selfing each other with their wisdom-thinking.. Be well.. Thank God you're beyond such things.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 11:26:17 GMT -5
Don't fool yourself. A relative truth is not a truth at all. There is only one truth and it's the truth of life in its contingent and obscene materiality. That we are this ugly creatures with these frail and disgusting bodies with internal organs, full of urine, feces and bacteria, all this slime, fat, bones, blood. And a nature that feeds on itself in unimaginable cruelty, all the diseases, decaying bodies. This is the trauma of man, that he is thrown into this pure contingency, without rhyme or reason. This truth is just a brutal fact, because it has no reason from which it follows, that's why it is impossible to accept, that the truth of life is this disgusting filth. It's easy to accept life if you're watching it from the perspective of some kind of imagined absolute subjectivity. But to fully accept life in its obscene materiality is impossible, you have to keep this reality away and maintain whatever illusion, otherwise this inhuman truth will destroy you. Have you ever imagined what it would be like if we never got ill and never died? If we lived forever and ever and ever? In fact, beauty cannot survive without ugliness, nor joy without sorrow.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2013 11:46:30 GMT -5
any and all I'm not implying that you are engaging in self-deception btw. Ignoring death back when I took myself to be the body would be an example. Here's the TMT version -- is it possible that I'm deceiving myself if I'm convinced that there's nothing that I'm deceiving myself about? Sorry my friend, but the whole pre-occupation with deceiving oneself or not deceiving oneself or not deceiving oneself about self deceit seems like a big silly hubbabaloo unless your absorbed in an identified localized self. Preoccupation? ... but yes, no self, no goal, and no source of deception. The commonality between the two things you compare in your poll is an absence. How is ignoring death back when you took yourself to be a body self deception? If you're aware of the mortality of the body and mistake that for what it's not, there are these endless stories that get concocted that appear to stave off paralysis. The question might occur, "if I'm going to die anyway, what's the point in doing anything?". There are an awful lot of answers that people make up in reply to that one. If mortality is ignored, the whole shooting match never occurs, right? Isn't it more like not paying attention to an imaginary event related to an imaginary idea of self? Yes, if there's noone to deceive and no source of deception, there is no deception.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 13, 2013 11:52:51 GMT -5
Have you ever imagined what it would be like if we never got ill and never died? If we lived forever and ever and ever? In fact, beauty cannot survive without ugliness, nor joy without sorrow. Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 12:05:06 GMT -5
In fact, beauty cannot survive without ugliness, nor joy without sorrow. Exactly. Hahaha, I think I just got a little temporary schoolboy crush on you Serpent Queen ;-) Seriously though, "you" seem to be "settling" into the "spaciousness" very nicely. There is a wonderful shift in your posting here, it was always very nice, but now there is a more "settled" quality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 13, 2013 12:13:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. There's a lot of selfs hiding in this rabbit hole, out-selfing each other with their wisdom-thinking.. Be well.. Thank God you're beyond such things. (** mutley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 19:23:42 GMT -5
In fact, beauty cannot survive without ugliness, nor joy without sorrow. Exactly. It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 13, 2013 19:52:50 GMT -5
It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante. Okay, so the bettering experience thing can be transcended? Can critters and trees transcend the bettering experience thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 20:33:24 GMT -5
It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante. Huh? Understanding anything seems irrelevant to me on this path, in my experience, either you are centered in a you where understanding is relevant, or absorbed in the undifferentiated where understanding is not relevant. I have not seen where "understanding" is anything other than a kind of attachment or hindrance on this path.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 21:18:06 GMT -5
It seems this mutually defining function of dualistic experience has to be seen clearly before the focus can be turned away from improving the experience and toward transcending it. For this reason, understanding clearly how dualistic experience plays out in the mind can be mucho importante. Okay, so the bettering experience thing can be transcended? Of course. Haven't you talked about that many times? Trees don't experience. (Sorry) Critters don't need to transcend what they have not turned into a problem. Q has shown precisely how humans turn dualistic experience into a problem to be solved or escaped. You won't catch a critter doing that, mostly because he's not nearly as smart as Q.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 13, 2013 21:23:55 GMT -5
Okay, so the bettering experience thing can be transcended? Of course. Haven't you talked about that many times? Yes, but you haven't, which is why I asked. Last time we discussed this, the entire universe was inherently selfish. Given this, you can imagine my surprise at the idea that you think this selfishness can be transcended. If trees don't experience, then how can they be selfishly trying to better their experience, as you once claimed? Okay, not sure where Q enters into the discussion, but if that's his claim (wherever, whenever, or whyever he said as much), I'm likely to agree with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 22:26:00 GMT -5
Of course. Haven't you talked about that many times? Yes, but you haven't, which is why I asked. Last time we discussed this, the entire universe was inherently selfish. Given this, you can imagine my surprise at the idea that you think this selfishness can be transcended. If trees don't experience, then how can they be selfishly trying to better their experience, as you once claimed? Okay, not sure where Q enters into the discussion, but if that's his claim (wherever, whenever, or whyever he said as much), I'm likely to agree with him. Enigma's folly is to believe that he knows what it's like to 'be' a tree... You going to believe him when he says that critters don't need to solve critter problems?!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 13, 2013 22:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, but you haven't, which is why I asked. Last time we discussed this, the entire universe was inherently selfish. Given this, you can imagine my surprise at the idea that you think this selfishness can be transcended. If trees don't experience, then how can they be selfishly trying to better their experience, as you once claimed? Okay, not sure where Q enters into the discussion, but if that's his claim (wherever, whenever, or whyever he said as much), I'm likely to agree with him. Enigma's folly is to believe that he knows what it's like to 'be' a tree... You going to believe him when he says that critters don't need to solve critter problems?! I'm to the point where I hardly believe anything he says.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 22:52:47 GMT -5
Enigma's folly is to believe that he knows what it's like to 'be' a tree... You going to believe him when he says that critters don't need to solve critter problems?! I'm to the point where I hardly believe anything he says. Yes, it's not just what Enigma say's that's a belief, it's the whole world and everything in it...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 13, 2013 23:27:26 GMT -5
Of course. Haven't you talked about that many times? Yes, but you haven't, which is why I asked. I've talked about unconditional Peace many times. I don't recall how I phrased it, but the nature of mind identification is entirely self centered. Of course it can be transcended. I could have clarified at the time, but you weren't asking and you weren't listening. You were spitting. I never claimed that.
|
|