Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 12:26:44 GMT -5
The point is that you don't know what one is or what one isn't... 'Thoughts' about what one is or what one isn't can be questioned because they are interpretations... The very nature of thought is interpretation and if it can be questioned then it is not knowledge... The thought of what you are is not what you are and what people refer to as the knowledge of what they are doesn't involve information. In this, the questioning itself is simply seen for what it is. Right, knowledge is not the same as a perception... True perception is the basis for knowledge, but the certainty of knowledge is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2013 13:58:22 GMT -5
Shhhhh....Don't make him mad. He must enjoy making himself mad...otherwise he wouldn't do it... Oh, yes, very muchly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2013 14:01:57 GMT -5
"What one isn't" and "one who isn't" are completely different statements. Semantics...who isn't and what isn't refer to the same thing... It's not semantics. 'What one isn't' refers to an idea only. When you say 'One who isn't separate', you've turned that idea into an actual 'someone'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 14:16:01 GMT -5
Semantics...who isn't and what isn't refer to the same thing... It's not semantics. 'What one isn't' refers to an idea only. When you say 'One who isn't separate', you've turned that idea into an actual 'someone'. They are both perceptions based on the fundamental question that continually gets talked about on this forum, being 'what is it that you are'... The problem is that the question can't be properly directed to yourself at all...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2013 14:17:11 GMT -5
The thought of what you are is not what you are and what people refer to as the knowledge of what they are doesn't involve information. In this, the questioning itself is simply seen for what it is. Right, knowledge is not the same as a perception... True perception is the basis for knowledge, but the certainty of knowledge is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions... I've got nothing to say about perception or truth in the context of our repartee.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2013 14:20:18 GMT -5
Well, apparently, in the natural state context, 'the mind is informed,' and expressed, and out pops 'timeless' or 'unchanging.' What popped out is a claim to having known something. <wrongbuzzer> Natural state means prior to mind so there's no exchange of any kind of information going on. Timeless and unchanging are ways of describing that gap in the usual data stream. Max, it's tricky to talk about but the way in which mind is 'informed' takes the form of a dissolution; a removal of knowledge. How is one to then talk in knowledgeable terms about this absence of knowledge without implying that some new knowledge is gained? For example, what oneness actually is, is the dissolution of the knowledge of separation. Oneness is a term used to point to this absence, which cannot be pointed to without some sort of knowledgably sounding word thingy. IOW, the realization of oneness is the realization, 'Oh, I see, separation was just an idea I made up. I'll drop that idea now and not pick up anything to replace it.' That's all it is, but the moment one starts to talk about it, it sounds all knowledgeable and truthy and maybe even TMT and arrogant and all the other condescending terms folks use to struggle with this absence. For that reason, it can sometimes be better to say nothing at all and just be silent, which is often recommended by some here and I have no problem with that except that it's a strange thing to do on a discussion forum. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2013 14:32:17 GMT -5
Natural state means prior to mind so there's no exchange of any kind of information going on. Timeless and unchanging are ways of describing that gap in the usual data stream. Max, it's tricky to talk about but the way in which mind is 'informed' takes the form of a dissolution; a removal of knowledge. How is one to then talk in knowledgeable terms about this absence of knowledge without implying that some new knowledge is gained? For example, what oneness actually is, is the dissolution of the knowledge of separation. Oneness is a term used to point to this absence, which cannot be pointed to without some sort of knowledgably sounding word thingy. IOW, the realization of oneness is the realization, 'Oh, I see, separation was just an idea I made up. I'll drop that idea now and not pick up anything to replace it.' That's all it is, but the moment one starts to talk about it, it sounds all knowledgeable and truthy and maybe even TMT and arrogant and all the other condescending terms folks use to struggle with this absence. For that reason, it can sometimes be better to say nothing at all and just be silent, which is often recommended by some here and I have no problem with that except that it's a strange thing to do on a discussion forum. Hehe. yer just an evil frog that doesn't like people bein' nice 'cause they know that all is One and Peaceful and Nice!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2013 15:21:54 GMT -5
You're talking as though all conceptualizations are equally false, and that's false. To point beyond a particular belief, or all beliefs, requires a conceptualization. This story biznis is being taken too far. Taken too far, for what? Is there ever such a thing as 'too far' when it comes to freedom? So long as you're still seeing certain conceptualizations about the nature of reality as being 'more true' than others, I'd have to question whether you really are seeing 'beyond stories.' I'm simply pointing from a place where all assertions about the nature of reality have been seen to be stories and sharing how as this has been deepening, the interest to discuss and compare stories is waning. And really, if it's really all seen to be stories, how can it not? Surely if we see all stories about the nature of reality for what they are, the "true vs. false" dichotomy itself, also falls away? A story is neither true nor false, if it's just a story. From the vantage point of seeing all assertions about the nature of reality as 'stories,' true vs. false no longer applies. & as I'm seeing, there's a deepening to that where the interest to entertain those stories also seems to lose it's grip. So long as we're still entertaining the idea that certain stories are a little bit more true than others, I'd say we haven't really gone beyond them. And no doubt, there are certain stories about the nature of reality that bring us pleasure and that we'd like to be more true than others, but in actually going beyond the stories, the need that was behind the propensity to see those things in those ways, has also fallen away. There's a risk in grasping the story that they're all stories and nothing is true or false, until you're really done with all the stories. When I see the end of the picture painting stories I'll be more open to the possibility that you've lost interest in the stories. Until then, I'm likely to keep pointing out that some stories are much closer to the actuality than others are. Once again, there is truth and falsity in every context that we can talk about. It's only prior to mind that nothing is ultimately true, and nobody anywhere is talking about that because it can't be talked about.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2013 15:25:21 GMT -5
IOW knowledge is that which cannot be questioned...if it can be questioned it's not knowledge... When I say "Okay", I mean, okay, I understand what you mean and have no problem with it. I won't, however, ever define knowledge in that way myself.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 12, 2013 15:35:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. So if what one is is mind made and what one isn't is mind made, than isn't your statement of distinctions being mind made also mind made?! What if any knowledge can be claimed from the perceiving of those thoughts?! The distinction is mind-made, not what one is. Relax ... you are not your mind. Yes, you are your mind.. and, you are more, mind is not all that you are.. it seems that a lot of this oneness stuff is largely imagined by the mind that the oneness parts think they are not.. of course, once imagined, best to discredit the evidence.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 12, 2013 15:45:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. Taken too far, for what? Is there ever such a thing as 'too far' when it comes to freedom? So long as you're still seeing certain conceptualizations about the nature of reality as being 'more true' than others, I'd have to question whether you really are seeing 'beyond stories.' I'm simply pointing from a place where all assertions about the nature of reality have been seen to be stories and sharing how as this has been deepening, the interest to discuss and compare stories is waning. And really, if it's really all seen to be stories, how can it not? Surely if we see all stories about the nature of reality for what they are, the "true vs. false" dichotomy itself, also falls away? A story is neither true nor false, if it's just a story. From the vantage point of seeing all assertions about the nature of reality as 'stories,' true vs. false no longer applies. & as I'm seeing, there's a deepening to that where the interest to entertain those stories also seems to lose it's grip. So long as we're still entertaining the idea that certain stories are a little bit more true than others, I'd say we haven't really gone beyond them. And no doubt, there are certain stories about the nature of reality that bring us pleasure and that we'd like to be more true than others, but in actually going beyond the stories, the need that was behind the propensity to see those things in those ways, has also fallen away. There's a risk in grasping the story that they're all stories and nothing is true or false, until you're really done with all the stories. When I see the end of the picture painting stories I'll be more open to the possibility that you've lost interest in the stories. Until then, I'm likely to keep pointing out that some stories are much closer to the actuality than others are. Once again, there is truth and falsity in every context that we can talk about. It's only prior to mind that nothing is ultimately true, and nobody anywhere is talking about that because it can't be talked about. Teacher, judge, jury? When you see that people agree with you, then you will play nice with them.. 'Prior to mind' is prior to existence/awareness/consciousness, so yeah.. nobody's talking about it.. keepin' in 'mind', though, that context along with true/truth falls away as the mind becomes still and those attachments fall silent.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2013 16:10:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. The distinction is mind-made, not what one is. Relax ... you are not your mind. Yes, you are your mind.. and, you are more, mind is not all that you are.. it seems that a lot of this oneness stuff is largely imagined by the mind that the oneness parts think they are not.. of course, once imagined, best to discredit the evidence.. Be well.. oneness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 16:25:23 GMT -5
There's a risk in grasping the story that they're all stories and nothing is true or false, until you're really done with all the stories. Seeing all assertions about the nature of reality as stories before exploring enough stories as though they actually are either true or false is 'risky'? I don't get that. What exactly is the risk?....no hat to hang our hat on? NO foundation of belief about what's going on here? Can we ever really be done with all stories about 'this' unless we see them for what they are? You make it sound as though one finds some kind of resolve within the story, and then is able to move past it, to let it go, when really, it's the entirety of the story itself that gets seen for what it is when it's seen to be a story. Seeing assertions about the nature of reality to be nothing more than a story means, it's Not a little bit true, not a hair closer to the actuality than another story, not false, but rather....JUST a story. I have no argument with that. All of us who continue to come here to discuss the nature of reality are obviously still to some degree 'interested' in stories about it. Within that though, I'd say some are more attached to their story about the nature of reality than others are. If it cannot be known with certainty exactly what the actuality is, then how on earth can you say that some stories about what is actual, are 'closer' or 'farther' from 'it'? A story is a story....you're still hunting down 'truths.' So long as we're calling certain stories 'closer to the actuality' we've not really seen our words to be just a story. IN talking about 'what actually is the true nature of reality,' you are talking about that which is prior to. I'd say you go further than just talking about it....you regularly assert that your description of the 'actual' nature of reality, is true. (Oneness is true).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 19:31:42 GMT -5
IOW knowledge is that which cannot be questioned...if it can be questioned it's not knowledge... When I say "Okay", I mean, okay, I understand what you mean and have no problem with it. I won't, however, ever define knowledge in that way myself. Okay
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 19:46:41 GMT -5
Right, knowledge is not the same as a perception... True perception is the basis for knowledge, but the certainty of knowledge is the affirmation of truth and beyond all perceptions... I've got nothing to say about perception or truth in the context of our repartee. That's got to be a first...
|
|