|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jan 22, 2014 19:21:37 GMT -5
I have no idea what you be talkin bout. Coffee is perking as we speak, so I'll get back to you on this later maybe. Andrew reminds me of some type of super computer constantly analyzing everything from every possible angle. You remind me of an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 22, 2014 19:36:15 GMT -5
Andrew reminds me of some type of super computer constantly analyzing everything from every possible angle. You remind me of an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 20:43:32 GMT -5
Okay, I'm uncertain anybody disagrees with the inclusive idea. That's what transcendence means and what oneness implies. the thing is E, that When you continually argue from a position of exclusion ("no mountain", no person, no volition, no path) you give the impression that YOU disagree with the inclusive idea. It would be one thing to say; from the position of transcendence (full circle) the focus is no longer upon the idea of paths vs. no paths, or persons vs. no persons, or the question of 'is there volition,' but even from that position, it is still possible to engage with the idea of a path, a person, volition, etc., particularly from the position of conversing about such things. In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. But that doesn't mean we're not able to still engage with the idea of such things, particularly for the purpose of talking about experience, as we do on this forum. If you truly understand that transcendence means 'inclusive' then why do you draw such a hard line, and constantly take the position of 'no mountain' in your arguments here? Even from a teaching position when speaking to someone who is still not at transcendence, wouldn't it be better to help them understand that transcendence includes 'the person' and 'paths' etc. but it's just that the minute focus upon such, falls away, to reveal a more expansive (but still, inclusive) vantage point? I don't ever recall taking a "no mountain" position as such. I also don't say there are "no persons". What I say is there is no separate, volitional person. I do, in fact, say there is no volition, no free will, no separation, no path, and these illusions are not to be included. Transcendence doesn't mean reinstating illusions that have been seen through. The individual, person, unique perspective, however you want to talk about it, is 'real' and included. Appearances do, in fact, appear and are 'real' and are included. The 'mountain' is, for all intents and purposes, 'real'. I have no problem engaging with ideas and persons and their feelings. I do it here every day, so how can it seem that I deny their existence?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 20:51:00 GMT -5
We need not be directly 'focused' upon the presence of the person in our moment to moment experience, in order to acknowledge the existence of the person should the subject come up. AT 'full circle' the validity of both, 'there is a person' and 'there is not a person' is crystal clear. There is no longer any argument that one is more true than the other. A shift in focus, in this context, does not equal the disappearance of, complete absence of, or 'falsity' of persons, paths or volition. Rather than an either/or situation, from full circle, it's more a case of person AND no person. And in seeing 'both' the question of either/or, itself really does cease to engage. When someone is arguing for NO volition, NO person, NO path, they are arguing from the position of 'no mountain'....a position where the absence of those things is seen as true. Full circle is the transcendence of the divide between one OR the other.....the transcendence of a true vs. false mindset itself....the place where the question or person vs. no person, path vs. no path, volition vs. no volition, is seen for what it is...a means of dividing up an experience, in a way that ignores it's inherent wholeness. No separation, no path, no volition never becomes true again, or equally true/false, or any of that nonsense. It is seen as false, and may then be seen as irrelevant, but it never becomes true again, ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 20:52:16 GMT -5
This sentence can mean quite a few different things. fwiw, I only see one. my intended meaning. To put another way; Just because I am not overtly focused upon personhood in my moment to moment experience, does not mean that I will say personhood is 'false' or that it has disappeared altogether when asked about it. Yes. When each of us says, I am human, that might mean different things. of course. yes. never said one went somewhere, in actuality. Full circle is just a means of explaining a shift in vantage point. AS is, "mountain, no mountain, mountain." From the vantage point of full circle, they are all one in the same. Taking each one the questions to consider, one at a time, happened back at 'no mountain.' Your suggestions suggests you don't fully understand what I"m talking about. I dont' get that. Again, I think we're off on different tangents. Again, of course not...and that's not what I'm even talking about. this all just seems like too much thinking. You're muddying the waters of my point. I think you're still seeing from no mountain and that's clouding things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:00:15 GMT -5
I don't ever recall taking a "no mountain" position as such. When I asked you why you speak from the 'no mountain' position, you essentially said you do so to meet folks where they stand. You dont' recall that? I think it was in a thread that JLY started...perhaps even the Jeff foster one. yes. In transcendence there is a falling away of the ideas of illusion vs. actual. And no, that does not mean that something that was previously seen as being 'illusive' is now seen as actual. Just that the whole dichotomy itself falls away and what we're left with is just, in your face, in the moment, experience. No need to label of classify what's happening as actual/illusive, true/false. It's just....'this....and 'this'....and 'this.' Real, has no relevance anymore. The mountain is equally as real or illusive as no mountain. Both are valid in terms of experience. I am speaking to your insistence that; there is no volitional person, no path to realization. Your adherence to the fact of that absence, suggests you are 'adhered' to the position of seeing no mountain.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 21:02:53 GMT -5
Yes on three grounds: 1) You've asked and E's answered the specific question at the core of your post within the past month and actually, if I'm not mistaken, the last few weeks. 2) The post is the type of image creation that we just got done discussing, in that you state a number of ideas and then assume that they are sourced from E'. 3) It's essentially a sort of disparagement of what you describe as "E's understanding". It's subtle but it's there and the fact that it's another iteration in a relentless repetition leads to a sort of self-reinforcement of a set of ideas as true that may or may not be. Wow. I dont' see any kind of attack there at all...and I thought that was what was to be avoided on the other side.... E himself agreed that he speaks from the position of 'no mountain' when I originally did ask the question, in that he answered that he does so, as to meet folks where they currently stand. (paraphrasing, but something very similar to that). And if E took no offense to my original question, and actually agreed with I disagreeessment by way of giving a reason as to 'why' he does that, is it really true then that I'm engaging in 'image creation'? This part of my post deals with the ideas themselves: And this part, does re-ask the question, but in a deeper way to try to ascertain why he speaks from the 'no mountain' position. I feel I was very civil in my asking of that. The curiosity to understand his position is genuine. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3372/win-debate-different-versions-realization?page=2&scrollTo=174269#ixzz2rAjR9lEaI think you are biased and did this to make a point. Regardless, it's a fine way to interrupt what was in my estimation, a good conversation that was happening over on that side. FWIW I don't see it as attack either, but then, the whole attack distinction seems arbitrary to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:06:18 GMT -5
We need not be directly 'focused' upon the presence of the person in our moment to moment experience, in order to acknowledge the existence of the person should the subject come up. AT 'full circle' the validity of both, 'there is a person' and 'there is not a person' is crystal clear. There is no longer any argument that one is more true than the other. A shift in focus, in this context, does not equal the disappearance of, complete absence of, or 'falsity' of persons, paths or volition. Rather than an either/or situation, from full circle, it's more a case of person AND no person. And in seeing 'both' the question of either/or, itself really does cease to engage. When someone is arguing for NO volition, NO person, NO path, they are arguing from the position of 'no mountain'....a position where the absence of those things is seen as true. Full circle is the transcendence of the divide between one OR the other.....the transcendence of a true vs. false mindset itself....the place where the question or person vs. no person, path vs. no path, volition vs. no volition, is seen for what it is...a means of dividing up an experience, in a way that ignores it's inherent wholeness. No separation, no path, no volition never becomes true again, or equally true/false, or any of that nonsense. It is seen as false, and may then be seen as irrelevant, but it never becomes true again, ever. Right. But to, To see something as 'false' is to still be operating in the realm where true vs. false applies. In transcendence we move beyond true/false, into just being at one with the moment and what ever is happening. All labels and conceptualizations about what's happening, fall away. The question of true vs. false becomes irrelevant WHEN the whole concept of true/false becomes so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:07:05 GMT -5
Wow. I dont' see any kind of attack there at all...and I thought that was what was to be avoided on the other side.... E himself agreed that he speaks from the position of 'no mountain' when I originally did ask the question, in that he answered that he does so, as to meet folks where they currently stand. (paraphrasing, but something very similar to that). And if E took no offense to my original question, and actually agreed with I disagreeessment by way of giving a reason as to 'why' he does that, is it really true then that I'm engaging in 'image creation'? This part of my post deals with the ideas themselves: And this part, does re-ask the question, but in a deeper way to try to ascertain why he speaks from the 'no mountain' position. I feel I was very civil in my asking of that. The curiosity to understand his position is genuine. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3372/win-debate-different-versions-realization?page=2&scrollTo=174269#ixzz2rAjR9lEaI think you are biased and did this to make a point. Regardless, it's a fine way to interrupt what was in my estimation, a good conversation that was happening over on that side. FWIW I don't see it as attack either, but then, the whole attack distinction seems arbitrary to me. Thanks for weighing in E. I appreciate it. I guess i should have just asked you to start with.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:24:29 GMT -5
This sentence can mean quite a few different things. fwiw, I only see one. my intended meaning. To put another way; Just because I am not overtly focused upon personhood in my moment to moment experience, does not mean that I will say personhood is 'false' or that it has disappeared altogether when asked about it. Yes. When each of us says, I am human, that might mean different things. of course. yes. never said one went somewhere, in actuality. Full circle is just a means of explaining a shift in vantage point. AS is, "mountain, no mountain, mountain." From the vantage point of full circle, they are all one in the same. Taking each one the questions to consider, one at a time, happened back at 'no mountain.' Your suggestions suggests you don't fully understand what I"m talking about. What does stating that the concepts of personhood, volition and paths are "one in the same" even mean? How does the concept of volition arise without first assuming the concept of a person? The concept of an empty path, on the other hand, without a person, might have some meaning. Or were you attempting to point, and if so, can you state the pointer succinctly? I dont' get that. Again, I think we're off on different tangents. Then be specific about what you mean by the "shift in vantage point". What I've done is express the shift, the apparent path that the person follows, as a set of ideas about their identity that change over time. Can you state a similar expression? Again, of course not...and that's not what I'm even talking about. this all just seems like too much thinking. What you replied to here had no thought of mine in it, and only directed you back to your own. The TMT started here with an inherent self-contradiction: In transcendence, the focus upon such things simply falls away. ... and yet this very conversation, which you repetitively initiate on the forum, is exactly such a focus. You're muddying the waters of my point. I think you're still seeing from no mountain and that's clouding things. Then you have mistaken an absence for a presence, as I've described, and perhaps you've never really even experienced the shift in perspective referred to as "no mountain".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:28:48 GMT -5
I don't ever recall taking a "no mountain" position as such. When I asked you why you speak from the 'no mountain' position, you essentially said you do so to meet folks where they stand. You dont' recall that? I think it was in a thread that JLY started...perhaps even the Jeff foster one. What he said was that he often speaks with other people who are speaking from the "no mountain" perspective. To you understand the distinction?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:32:17 GMT -5
When I asked you why you speak from the 'no mountain' position, you essentially said you do so to meet folks where they stand. You dont' recall that? I think it was in a thread that JLY started...perhaps even the Jeff foster one. What he said was that he often speaks with other people who are speaking from the "no mountain" perspective. To you understand the distinction? To argue that there is NO volitional person, no path, no doer, IS to speak from the 'no mountain' position.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:32:29 GMT -5
FWIW I don't see it as attack either, but then, the whole attack distinction seems arbitrary to me. Of course it is, how couldn't it, ultimately, be arbitrary?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:33:27 GMT -5
What he said was that he often speaks with other people who are speaking from the "no mountain" perspective. To you understand the distinction? To argue that there is NO volitional person, no path, no doer, IS to speak from the 'no mountain' position. But he just explained to you that this is not the position that he speaks from.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 21:47:24 GMT -5
No separation, no path, no volition never becomes true again, or equally true/false, or any of that nonsense. It is seen as false, and may then be seen as irrelevant, but it never becomes true again, ever. Right. But to, To see something as 'false' is to still be operating in the realm where true vs. false applies. In transcendence we move beyond true/false, into just being at one with the moment and what ever is happening. All labels and conceptualizations about what's happening, fall away. The question of true vs. false becomes irrelevant WHEN the whole concept of true/false becomes so. In "moving beyond true/false" there is no basis for debate, there are no questions, only silence. In pointing beyond what words can convey, it's said that: We never see something as true, but we stop seeing what is false as what is true.
|
|