|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 5:07:05 GMT -5
'Reality' is merely a quality one asserts on the observable. That's what I call a 'secondary notion'.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Nov 7, 2013 5:09:23 GMT -5
'Reality' is merely a quality one asserts on the observable. That's what I call a 'secondary notion'. what is merely in the emensity of reality?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 5:25:55 GMT -5
'Reality' is merely a quality one asserts on the observable. That's what I call a 'secondary notion'. what is merely in the emensity of reality? I don't know the answer to that one... It seems rhetorical in some way. It doesn't feel like a genuine question... It feels... loaded. I think it's more like an answer posing as a question, actually.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Nov 7, 2013 7:15:07 GMT -5
what is merely in the emensity of reality? I don't know the answer to that one... It seems rhetorical in some way. It doesn't feel like a genuine question... It feels... loaded. I think it's more like an answer posing as a question, actually. NOT knowing is a better state than knowing is. Not knowing is exhilerating, sensitive,delightfully expectant, alert.... on the verge of knowing is precious to say the least. Without ignorance, people who-know could never act out 'Know it all' be domineering and over the top. Seems to me no-knowing is closer to compassion than knowing is.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Nov 7, 2013 7:18:33 GMT -5
what is merely in the emensity of reality? I don't know the answer to that one... It seems rhetorical in some way. It doesn't feel like a genuine question... It feels... loaded. I think it's more like an answer posing as a question, actually. NOT knowing is a far better state than knowing is. Not knowing is exhilerating, sensitive,delightfully expectant, alert.... on the verge of knowing is precious to say the least. Without ignorance, people who-know could never act-out 'Know it all' be domineering and over the top. Seems to me not-knowing is much closer to compassion than knowing is. To me its like NORMAL... its better to be nearly-normal rather than NORMAL!
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 7, 2013 7:20:04 GMT -5
I have logically proven that existence is a mistake. What is so funny?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 7:26:02 GMT -5
I don't know the answer to that one... It seems rhetorical in some way. It doesn't feel like a genuine question... It feels... loaded. I think it's more like an answer posing as a question, actually. NOT knowing is a better state than knowing is. Not knowing is exhilerating, sensitive,delightfully expectant, alert.... on the verge of knowing is precious to say the least. Without ignorance, people who-know could never act out 'Know it all' be domineering and over the top. Seems to me no-knowing is closer to compassion than knowing is. Oh ... I'm pretty big on compassion... I just don't think in ultimate terms, so knowing is like I know I'm typing here or I know how to grow beans. There are also things to know by way of insight too... To me its like NORMAL... its better to be nearly-normal rather than NORMAL! Yea... normal is a hard one, I guess there are degrees of normalcy.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 7, 2013 9:20:16 GMT -5
No. I wouldn't call existence a mistake. I know there's a lot of ways to consider existence, random, designed, inexplicable... We get these one liners like 'it's meant to be', and I think such an attitude implies a good deal of equanimity, which is nice. I'm usually concerned with human behavior. In my philosophy suffering is behavior based, not actions in a physical sense, but mental behaviours. The behaviours don't serve themselves, they are caused by something, namely something from the world. First the world is a mistake and then we react to the mistake. If the world were perfect then we wouldn't be sad and angry. What you're suggesting is a form of cognitive dissonance, or the ignorant three monkeys hear/see/speak no evil. It's dishonesty at its purest. The honest way would be to admit that yes the world is an evil mistake, and we have every right to be píssed about it, but it's a stupid world and there is no god or higher intelligence, so just choose some belief that makes you feel comfortable so that you can be less píssed about the world. This whole nonduality/spirituality thing is simply about forming an unshakable belief that makes one feel comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2013 10:33:46 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 10:39:56 GMT -5
Yes but that's all in the realm of human behavior. Would you call existence a mistake? And just because it might not be a mistake doesn't mean it is therefore all part of a big pattern or perfect or anything. It can not be known. And this may be uncomfortable. No. I wouldn't call existence a mistake. I know there's a lot of ways to consider existence, random, designed, inexplicable... We get these one liners like 'it's meant to be', and I think such an attitude implies a good deal of equanimity, which is nice. I'm usually concerned with human behavior. In my philosophy suffering is behavior based, not actions in a physical sense, but mental behaviours. I couldn't elaborate on that in a few sentences, so I wont, I'll explain it in length. We identify with our form. This includes two primary objects; the body and the self image. For the sake of definition, the self image is what we think we are. This entails the entire physio/psychological structure we identify with, including belief, worldview, self esteem and, like, everything that is associated with "me" or ''I". To clarify, most people have some notion of ego, but please avoid thinking of that as a thing for the sake of this philosophy, rather, consider it to be non-existent. It's just a name for an imagined aparition, just like 'unicorn' conjures horny horse imagery without every existing. In this way we can say, there aren't any egos. We can get to what we observe as being. We observe thoughts and we observe ego in the same manner as observe unicorn... It's observable that we have self-image and have notions of 'I'. The things we sense, sight sound taste smell touch, all use the nervous system, so everything we sense creates sensation that we can feel. Some people don't have particularly keen perception, but sight does create feelings. Even emotional feelings are also physical sensations... and everthing a person things manifests as a sensation. This means that everything we perceive, even subconsiously, manifests as physical sensations... The sensations occur and then we can notice unpleasant sensations and we notice really nice sensations, and that happens. We already know pleasure and pain. Of course everyone wants pleasure and dosn't want pain, generally speaking... and this is the base of desire, greed and aversions and hatred. The meditation is basically watching as pleasure and pain come an go... just passing sensation, and the practice cultivates equanimity, which is fundamental to calm. The equanimous mind becomes stronger and endure increasing discomfort without being ruffled, and enjoy great pleasure without attachment... because the simple fact is, all sensation is changing. I rarely agree with Tolle, but once he gave an example of just close your eyes and feel the physical sensation in one hand, and notice how that sensation changes in just one minute. Thats how pleasure and pain are just slipping by, they aren't even there and next moment different... The suffering comes into it because the 'I thought' occurs, the ego, the unicorn, and this sensation is all of a sudden happening to me!... I love this feeling or OMG whan will it end! There we have it, a mental behaviour. The thought then creates a sensation and 'I' react to the new sensation as well, and that thought in turn creates more sensation and I react and on it goes... Oh me oh mine and oh 'my' sensation. One person will react very strongly, while another person will 'Keep calm and carry on'. So I ranted a long time, but the summary would say in one sentence, suffering is a result of not being at peace with change. That's how I understand it too. And Adyashanti's 'resisting what is' makes sense in that light. In fact he calls that the ego. Also Byron Katie's 'loving what is' makes sense in the same way if you're talking about peace and such. I heard Joan Tollifson say something the other day which interested me. She was talking about the buddhist principle of impermanence -- pretty much stating what you said above using different lingo. She said that there is nothing to actually be impermanent. That is, there was nothing ever to change. At no point in change is there something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 10:46:21 GMT -5
'Reality' is merely a quality one asserts on the observable. That's what I call a 'secondary notion'. And there is no primary notion, right? There's just observing.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 7, 2013 10:47:24 GMT -5
*yawn* You think I'm trolling all the time. I'm not. I made a simple and logical argument. Prove me wrong or get lost. I absolutely hate jokes at my expense. How much effort does it cost you to just stop making them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 10:54:27 GMT -5
*yawn* You think I'm trolling all the time. I'm not. I made a simple and logical argument. Prove me wrong or get lost. I absolutely hate jokes at my expense. How much effort does it cost you to just stop making them? mis·take m??st?k/Submit noun 1. an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong. "coming here was a mistake" synonyms: error, fault, inaccuracy, omission, slip, blunder, miscalculation, misunderstanding, oversight, misinterpretation, gaffe, faux pas, solecism; More go wrong, err, make an error, blunder, miscalculate; informalslip up, make a boo-boo, drop the ball, goof (up) something, esp. a word, figure, or fact, that is not correct; an inaccuracy. "a couple of spelling mistakes" verb verb: mistake;?3rd person present: mistakes;?past tense: mistook;?gerund or present participle: mistaking;?past participle: mistaken 1. be wrong about. "because I was inexperienced, I mistook the nature of our relationship" synonyms: misunderstand, misinterpret, get wrong, misconstrue, misread More be wrong, be in error, be under a misapprehension, be misinformed, be misguided; informalbe barking up the wrong tree wrongly identify someone or something as. "she thought he'd mistaken her for someone else" synonyms: confuse with, mix up with, take for, misinterpret as More Origin More late Middle English (as a verb): from Old Norse mistaka ‘take in error,’ probably influenced in sense by Old French mesprendre . Translate mistake to Use over time for: mistake Maybe a better word would be 'accident'?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2013 11:12:49 GMT -5
*yawn* You think I'm trolling all the time. I'm not. I made a simple and logical argument. Prove me wrong or get lost. I absolutely hate jokes at my expense. How much effort does it cost you to just stop making them? .... I wasn't laughing at you
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 7, 2013 11:19:17 GMT -5
Maybe a better word would be 'accident'? Whatever you like. You don't like me, but you know that I'm saying the truth, so you're trying to find a different word than mine to express the same truth, so that to yourself you can fake some disagrement. But you can't cheat me, I'm seeing through all your subtle games. The important aspect is that existence is imperfect, and even worse, it is imperfect at my expense. If I were to decide then existence would be different, i.e. it is a mistake that needs to be corrected.
|
|