|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2013 1:04:47 GMT -5
He says he having trouble sleeping, and now it makes sense. He's no doubt glowing so brightly he can't get to sleep, and so he's suffering from sleep deprivation, and of course since he's an airline pilot, he currently poses a serious risk to 100's of passengers and must be stopped at all cost. Maybe he should contact Arisha and she can ask MrG to turn off the glow? Aren't Arisha and Bengst still on good terms? I'm sure she will do a friend such a favor. Well, see, that's the thing, and I'm not sposed to talk about this so you hafta promise not to tell anybody, but.........Bengst IS Mr G.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 22, 2013 1:27:41 GMT -5
Maybe he should contact Arisha and she can ask MrG to turn off the glow? Aren't Arisha and Bengst still on good terms? I'm sure she will do a friend such a favor. Well, see, that's the thing, and I'm not sposed to talk about this so you hafta promise not to tell anybody, but.........Bengst IS Mr G. Hm. Then what Arisha said about you was actually coming from Bengst?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 22, 2013 2:03:08 GMT -5
Well, see, that's the thing, and I'm not sposed to talk about this so you hafta promise not to tell anybody, but.........Bengst IS Mr G. Hm. Then what Arisha said about you was actually coming from Bengst? Hmmmm....All the pieces are falling into place now.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 22, 2013 7:27:13 GMT -5
Then why can't you just speak plain English? You are deliberately creating confusion. Nice job. Oui.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 22, 2013 7:35:27 GMT -5
Maybe he should contact Arisha and she can ask MrG to turn off the glow? Aren't Arisha and Bengst still on good terms? I'm sure she will do a friend such a favor. Well, see, that's the thing, and I'm not sposed to talk about this so you hafta promise not to tell anybody, but.........Bengst IS Mr G.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2013 9:00:47 GMT -5
Well, first of all, did enigma actually ever say this? Now since you're the one asking the question, it would be fair of you to put this statement that he supposedly said: "oneness is truth" ... in context. Now if you would like to do that, great, but if not, here's his use of the word oneness during the recent discussion with Max: Would you like me to respond based on this? If so, I'd ask that you phrase your question based on E's words here. If not, then please quote E' directly and ask the question based on the direct quote. ==== Tzu', I've always been and am willing to speak about whatever you want to speak about, but at the outset you indicated that you were interested in: I want to draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is only obliquely about "oneness and non-duality" and instead is about my understanding of something that you perceive that E' has stated about oneness. Can't say for sure as it's only a hypothetical but if you'd asked me at the outset for the current conversation I don't know as if I would have replied as simply as I did, with "Sure, what's on your mind?". O.k., this time it's at least stated as an assertion rather than a presupposition. Again, where did this occur? I use the word truth quite sparingly, and the word oneness isn't even something that I use at all, so I can state with high confidence that it's unlikely you'll find content of mine that matches your assertion: as far as I remember, I've never supported the idea that "oneness is truth", regardless if it was E or anyone else who said it. ===== This reveals a fundamental difference in our understanding on the nature of non-duality. As I see it, there is no ambiguity to the statement that not-two is not one. My understanding is that not-two is a pointer toward something that can't be expressed directly, much less expressed as simply and succinctly as "it could be one". I'd say that it's not possible to say what is pointed toward by not-two is, only what it isn't. This isn't to disparage your point of view or try to talk you out of it, but this apparent difference in our understandings seems quite significant to me in that it is likely to color any other discussion on the topic that we can have. I dunno where y'all are from, but where I come from oneness an truth ain't no dirty words and most folks don't hardly raise a eyebrow when they hears it, so seems only natural to set on the front porch an have us some moonshine an play a little banjo and chaw bout oneness bein the truth n all. Now I do hear tell you city folk don't cotton to that kinda talk and s'aright okay, I got no beef widdit. Jus so's ya know, we don mean nuthin by it, ya know? We don mean no disrespect or nuthin, jus messin round, ya know? (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 22, 2013 11:07:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception, but yes.. i recall also your challenge of E's use of the word oneness, and the dream/dreamer metaphor.. i am quite clear on my recollection of your support of enigma's position as it relates to 'oneness', not that it matters in this request.. but, i am basing my curiosity on the recollection, rather than a supposition.. anyway, our past need not influence the potential for a productive current discussion, so.. To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one), in relation to nonduality is not relative to the question i posed in this version of our discussion.. i asked: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" Be well.. Well, first of all, did enigma actually ever say this? Now since you're the one asking the question, it would be fair of you to put this statement that he supposedly said: "oneness is truth" ... in context. Now if you would like to do that, great, but if not, here's his use of the word oneness during the recent discussion with Max: Oneness does not depend upon separation because it is not describing a dualistic experience. It refers to what is actually and always the case regardless of what experience is happening. I'm saying is that what you're describing in not a oneness experience. Isn't Max saying he's never experienced oneness? Oneness is not an experience, it's the absence of twoness. Would you like me to respond based on this? If so, I'd ask that you phrase your question based on E's words here. If not, then please quote E' directly and ask the question based on the direct quote. ==== Tzu', I've always been and am willing to speak about whatever you want to speak about, but at the outset you indicated that you were interested in: Greetings.. Cool, so.. drop the pretentious crap and actually engage in open, honest, simple (for my simple-mindedness), and unconditionally sincere discussions about oneness and non-duality.. will you do that? Be well.. I want to draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is only obliquely about "oneness and non-duality" and instead is about my understanding of something that you perceive that E' has stated about oneness. Can't say for sure as it's only a hypothetical but if you'd asked me at the outset for the current conversation I don't know as if I would have replied as simply as I did, with "Sure, what's on your mind?". There have been more than one instance where, in the course of enigma's efforts to insist that oneness is truth, that you supported that perception O.k., this time it's at least stated as an assertion rather than a presupposition. Again, where did this occur? I use the word truth quite sparingly, and the word oneness isn't even something that I use at all, so I can state with high confidence that it's unlikely you'll find content of mine that matches your assertion: as far as I remember, I've never supported the idea that "oneness is truth", regardless if it was E or anyone else who said it. ===== To state that "not two is not one", aside from its obvious ambiguity (not two could be one) This reveals a fundamental difference in our understanding on the nature of non-duality. As I see it, there is no ambiguity to the statement that not-two is not one. My understanding is that not-two is a pointer toward something that can't be expressed directly, much less expressed as simply and succinctly as "it could be one". I'd say that it's not possible to say what is pointed toward by not-two is, only what it isn't. This isn't to disparage your point of view or try to talk you out of it, but this apparent difference in our understandings seems quite significant to me in that it is likely to color any other discussion on the topic that we can have. "Not two", could be anything except "two".. Start there, then and ignore the rest.. your tactic of beating people with minutia is effective, i'm losing interest, already.. you know i won't do the searches to find what i am certain transpired, it interrupts the flow of discussion.. yep, you get to claim victory an a technicality, i won't spend the time to prove what i know.. so, are you willing to go forward with examining the "not two" pointer? it is a fundamental difference of understanding, so working through it seems like the place to start.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2013 19:55:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. Well, first of all, did enigma actually ever say this? Now since you're the one asking the question, it would be fair of you to put this statement that he supposedly said: "oneness is truth" ... in context. Now if you would like to do that, great, but if not, here's his use of the word oneness during the recent discussion with Max: Would you like me to respond based on this? If so, I'd ask that you phrase your question based on E's words here. If not, then please quote E' directly and ask the question based on the direct quote. ==== Tzu', I've always been and am willing to speak about whatever you want to speak about, but at the outset you indicated that you were interested in: I want to draw your attention to the fact that this discussion is only obliquely about "oneness and non-duality" and instead is about my understanding of something that you perceive that E' has stated about oneness. Can't say for sure as it's only a hypothetical but if you'd asked me at the outset for the current conversation I don't know as if I would have replied as simply as I did, with "Sure, what's on your mind?". O.k., this time it's at least stated as an assertion rather than a presupposition. Again, where did this occur? I use the word truth quite sparingly, and the word oneness isn't even something that I use at all, so I can state with high confidence that it's unlikely you'll find content of mine that matches your assertion: as far as I remember, I've never supported the idea that "oneness is truth", regardless if it was E or anyone else who said it. ===== This reveals a fundamental difference in our understanding on the nature of non-duality. As I see it, there is no ambiguity to the statement that not-two is not one. My understanding is that not-two is a pointer toward something that can't be expressed directly, much less expressed as simply and succinctly as "it could be one". I'd say that it's not possible to say what is pointed toward by not-two is, only what it isn't. This isn't to disparage your point of view or try to talk you out of it, but this apparent difference in our understandings seems quite significant to me in that it is likely to color any other discussion on the topic that we can have. "Not two", could be anything except "two".. Start there, then and ignore the rest.. your tactic of beating people with minutia is effective, i'm losing interest, already.. you know i won't do the searches to find what i am certain transpired, it interrupts the flow of discussion.. yep, you get to claim victory an a technicality, i won't spend the time to prove what i know.. so, are you willing to go forward with examining the "not two" pointer? it is a fundamental difference of understanding, so working through it seems like the place to start.. Be well.. Doesn't seem like an open honest discussion anymore Tzu'. "tactic of beating people with minutia"? "claim victory"? Sorry man, I did my level best to respond but if you ask me to express my understanding of something we first have to establish what it is that I supposedly understand, and you asking me my understanding of what enigma means by "oneness" when he says "oneness is truth" out of context of what he actually said and regardless of whether he actually said it doesn't establish what it is that I supposedly understand. Well that's a literal interpretation of the words "not two" but I've already indicated that my understanding of the term not-two is that it points toward what can't be completely and exactly expressed with words. While it would be talk about the pointer rather than following where it points to, I could project my understanding of not-two onto the notion of information in general in an explanation as to why what the pointer points toward doesn't embody a piece of information. In contrast, to follow the pointer one might simply be still in body and mind and contemplate the pointer by regarding any apparent object of perception and asking "is there an object?" ... this might be expressed as the act of testing the pointer by what might be in-artfully described as, asking "two?".
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 22, 2013 23:39:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. "Not two", could be anything except "two".. Start there, then and ignore the rest.. your tactic of beating people with minutia is effective, i'm losing interest, already.. you know i won't do the searches to find what i am certain transpired, it interrupts the flow of discussion.. yep, you get to claim victory an a technicality, i won't spend the time to prove what i know.. so, are you willing to go forward with examining the "not two" pointer? it is a fundamental difference of understanding, so working through it seems like the place to start.. Be well.. Doesn't seem like an open honest discussion anymore Tzu'. "tactic of beating people with minutia"? "claim victory"? Sorry man, I did my level best to respond but if you ask me to express my understanding of something we first have to establish what it is that I supposedly understand, and you asking me my understanding of what enigma means by "oneness" when he says "oneness is truth" out of context of what he actually said and regardless of whether he actually said it doesn't establish what it is that I supposedly understand. Well that's a literal interpretation of the words "not two" but I've already indicated that my understanding of the term not-two is that it points toward what can't be completely and exactly expressed with words. While it would be talk about the pointer rather than following where it points to, I could project my understanding of not-two onto the notion of information in general in an explanation as to why what the pointer points toward doesn't embody a piece of information. In contrast, to follow the pointer one might simply be still in body and mind and contemplate the pointer by regarding any apparent object of perception and asking "is there an object?" ... this might be expressed as the act of testing the pointer by what might be in-artfully described as, asking "two?". You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting your understanding of my question.. I did not ask you what enigma means when he uses the term 'oneness', i asked you what your understanding of the term oneness is when you hear enigma use it in the expression "oneness is truth", i'm not interested in context, or E's meaning in this question to you.. the question: " what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" is not dependent on context, it is dependent on your understanding of the term 'oneness' as it relates to 'truth' based on enigmas's use, i had been hopeful that we could relate it to the discussions in this forum.. but, when you hear the statement, regardless of who states it (E was referenced since he stated it in this forum), when you hear "oneness is truth" in the general context of a 'Spiritual' discussion, what is your understanding of the term 'oneness'?.. Regarding your last paragraph: the contradiction between the suggestion to "be still in body and mind", and the lack of mental stillness necessary to 'ask', "is there an object?" or to contemplate a 'pointer' by regarding what you stipulate as an 'apparent' object, with a question about your stipulated quality of the perception, seems either intentionally contrived and misleading, or an attempt to create obstacles to a fluid and organic discussion.. No, the conversation, from my perspective, is still very open honest and sincere.. and, your reply after referencing my comment about your "tactic of beating people with minutia", further exemplifies the reference.. you had the necessary information to answer the questions asked and continue an open, sincere, and honest discussion, but.. you contrived plausible distractions, rather than move forward in a more productive holistic manner.. this my open honest and sincere observation.. So, if you are inclined to continue on a more fluid and dynamic discussion, you could 'talk about' why you chose "not two" as a pointer, what relevance it has for you, personally.. or, you could answer the question about your understanding of the term 'oneness', as it relates to the phrase "oneness is truth" in a general 'Spiritual' context.. in either of those scenarios, there is the potential for discussion that might resolve ambiguities or misunderstanding between our apparently separate understandings.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2013 8:25:07 GMT -5
So, if you are inclined to continue on a more fluid and dynamic discussion, you could 'talk about' why you chose "not two" as a pointer, what relevance it has for you, personally.. or, you could answer the question about your understanding of the term 'oneness', as it relates to the phrase "oneness is truth" in a general 'Spiritual' context.. in either of those scenarios, there is the potential for discussion that might resolve ambiguities or misunderstanding between our apparently separate understandings.. Be well.. (** scratches underside of the chin of big long-haired cat on desk in front of keyboard as he purrs **) The phrase evokes no meaning that I find expressible by ideation. It seems to me that not-two points toward ineffable truth. ----- Regarding your last paragraph: the contradiction between the suggestion to "be still in body and mind", and the lack of mental stillness necessary to 'ask', "is there an object?" or to contemplate a 'pointer' by regarding what you stipulate as an 'apparent' object, with a question about your stipulated quality of the perception, seems either intentionally contrived and misleading, or an attempt to create obstacles to a fluid and organic discussion.. Well, as I said: this might be expressed as the act of testing the pointer by what might be in-artfully described as, asking "two?". I'm relatively new to the idea of nonconceptual "seeing", "looking" or what have you, and my reference for it is as thin as a dimestore paperback page. On one hand it's both quite puzzling and seems somehow counter to the idea that so much has been written about something so simple and what is essentially a natural state of affairs ... on the other hand as I continue to explore, the artful expressions of it encountered do tend to strike a chord and bring into relief my own ham-handedness in attempting to elucidate the idea when it's called for, as it was in that juncture of the conversation. --- You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting your understanding of my question.. I wasn't misrepresenting my understanding of your question ... sure, it's quite possible that I misunderstood your question. I did not ask you what enigma means when he uses the term 'oneness', i asked you what your understanding of the term oneness is when you hear enigma use it in the expression "oneness is truth" i'm not interested in context, or E's meaning in this question to you.. the question: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" is not dependent on context, it is dependent on your understanding of the term 'oneness' as it relates to 'truth' based on enigmas's use, It seems to me that this directly contradicts itself as indicated.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 23, 2013 15:16:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. So, if you are inclined to continue on a more fluid and dynamic discussion, you could 'talk about' why you chose "not two" as a pointer, what relevance it has for you, personally.. or, you could answer the question about your understanding of the term 'oneness', as it relates to the phrase "oneness is truth" in a general 'Spiritual' context.. in either of those scenarios, there is the potential for discussion that might resolve ambiguities or misunderstanding between our apparently separate understandings.. Be well.. (** scratches underside of the chin of big long-haired cat on desk in front of keyboard as he purrs **) The phrase evokes no meaning that I find expressible by ideation. It seems to me that not-two points toward ineffable truth. ----- Regarding your last paragraph: the contradiction between the suggestion to "be still in body and mind", and the lack of mental stillness necessary to 'ask', "is there an object?" or to contemplate a 'pointer' by regarding what you stipulate as an 'apparent' object, with a question about your stipulated quality of the perception, seems either intentionally contrived and misleading, or an attempt to create obstacles to a fluid and organic discussion.. Well, as I said: this might be expressed as the act of testing the pointer by what might be in-artfully described as, asking "two?". I'm relatively new to the idea of nonconceptual "seeing", "looking" or what have you, and my reference for it is as thin as a dimestore paperback page. On one hand it's both quite puzzling and seems somehow counter to the idea that so much has been written about something so simple and what is essentially a natural state of affairs ... on the other hand as I continue to explore, the artful expressions of it encountered do tend to strike a chord and bring into relief my own ham-handedness in attempting to elucidate the idea when it's called for, as it was in that juncture of the conversation. --- You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting your understanding of my question.. I wasn't misrepresenting my understanding of your question ... sure, it's quite possible that I misunderstood your question. I did not ask you what enigma means when he uses the term 'oneness', i asked you what your understanding of the term oneness is when you hear enigma use it in the expression "oneness is truth" i'm not interested in context, or E's meaning in this question to you.. the question: "what is 'your' understanding of the term 'oneness' as used by enigma when he says, "oneness is truth"?" is not dependent on context, it is dependent on your understanding of the term 'oneness' as it relates to 'truth' based on enigmas's use, It seems to me that this directly contradicts itself as indicated. It is evident that you are relatively new at nonconceptual seeing, which is actually a useful place to be, fresh new potential.. the active mind's portrayal of its activity: beliefs, knowledge, realization, preferences, etc.. distort the clarity otherwise available to the observer's inactive/still mind.. your attachment to embellished speech and crafty word-play are examples of distorted perspective mental bondage.. direct simplicity liberates the mind from the activity of conceptualizing crafty embellishments.. kinda like 'word association', where the first thing, relative to the discussion, that comes to mind is the response, rather than the dissection and word-lawyering evident in your replies.. your skill at word-craft is well evolved, so familiarizing yourself with simplicity and clarity might 'seem' counter intuitive, but.. liberate the mind from bondage to itself, and insight/intuition has more open space in which to reveal itself.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2013 18:15:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. (** scratches underside of the chin of big long-haired cat on desk in front of keyboard as he purrs **) The phrase evokes no meaning that I find expressible by ideation. It seems to me that not-two points toward ineffable truth. ----- Well, as I said: I'm relatively new to the idea of nonconceptual "seeing", "looking" or what have you, and my reference for it is as thin as a dimestore paperback page. On one hand it's both quite puzzling and seems somehow counter to the idea that so much has been written about something so simple and what is essentially a natural state of affairs ... on the other hand as I continue to explore, the artful expressions of it encountered do tend to strike a chord and bring into relief my own ham-handedness in attempting to elucidate the idea when it's called for, as it was in that juncture of the conversation. --- I wasn't misrepresenting my understanding of your question ... sure, it's quite possible that I misunderstood your question. It seems to me that this directly contradicts itself as indicated. It is evident that you are relatively new at nonconceptual seeing, which is actually a useful place to be, fresh new potential.. the active mind's portrayal of its activity: beliefs, knowledge, realization, preferences, etc.. distort the clarity otherwise available to the observer's inactive/still mind.. your attachment to embellished speech and crafty word-play are examples of distorted perspective mental bondage.. direct simplicity liberates the mind from the activity of conceptualizing crafty embellishments.. kinda like 'word association', where the first thing, relative to the discussion, that comes to mind is the response, rather than the dissection and word-lawyering evident in your replies.. your skill at word-craft is well evolved, so familiarizing yourself with simplicity and clarity might 'seem' counter intuitive, but.. liberate the mind from bondage to itself, and insight/intuition has more open space in which to reveal itself.. Be well.. New? Nah, my first sunset was decades ago. Looking without a filter ain't got nothin' to do with time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2013 18:22:54 GMT -5
Greetings.. It is evident that you are relatively new at nonconceptual seeing, which is actually a useful place to be, fresh new potential.. the active mind's portrayal of its activity: beliefs, knowledge, realization, preferences, etc.. distort the clarity otherwise available to the observer's inactive/still mind.. your attachment to embellished speech and crafty word-play are examples of distorted perspective mental bondage.. direct simplicity liberates the mind from the activity of conceptualizing crafty embellishments.. kinda like 'word association', where the first thing, relative to the discussion, that comes to mind is the response, rather than the dissection and word-lawyering evident in your replies.. your skill at word-craft is well evolved, so familiarizing yourself with simplicity and clarity might 'seem' counter intuitive, but.. liberate the mind from bondage to itself, and insight/intuition has more open space in which to reveal itself.. Be well.. New? Nah, my first sunset was decades ago. Looking without a filter ain't got nothin' to do with time. That's where Tzu's non-conceptual seeing turns into conceptualizing... There hasn't been a 'time' when we haven't been seeing non-conceptually... It's called 'Being' and we've always been that...
|
|