Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:57:15 GMT -5
In "moving beyond true/false" there is no basis for debate, Not debate over ideas that I am attached to as being absolutely 'true' no. There are still conversations that may be had...or not. none that are attached to...or deemed to be important in terms of understanding about 'this,' Nope. There's still experience in all it's glory...noisy and loud and colorful.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2014 22:20:38 GMT -5
In "moving beyond true/false" there is no basis for debate, Not debate over ideas that I am attached to as being absolutely 'true' no. There are still conversations that may be had...or not. Every expression of disagreement references an implied contextual true/false polarity and potentially an associated range of nuance in between the poles. < > none that are attached to...or deemed to be important in terms of understanding about 'this,' The idea of attachment has nothing to do with this point. No true/false, no disagreement. No disagreement, no debate. 'this', similar to "Source" or whatever word you would like to use, is only ever a failed objectification of what cannot be objectified. Nope. There's still experience in all it's glory...noisy and loud and colorful. Yes, experience in all it's glory, but no questions, no doubts, no actual disagreements about that experience. Just a silly light play of ephemeral ideas, and those can't dent what is really meant by the word silence. </ >
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 23:36:26 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. No, i don't recall. Further, the 'no mountain' position would be akin to what we've called the fundamentalist neo advaita position. It's also a stage that most nonduality type seekers seem to go through, and while I know you see some of these peeps lurking about here (maybe even me), I don't, so I would have nobody to address from a 'no mountain' position. What I HAVE said is that I often address folks from within the paradigm of their mind/body identification and in the context of whatever self improvement program they may be working on. This is essentially the work that 'becoming conscious' entails. It has nothing to do with the 'no mountain' perspective. Those two statements seem to contradict. If real has no relevance, then there is no equally real and illusive. That's the point I was trying to make about the statements of things being equally true/false. Equally true/false opens the door to declaring what was once seen as a false illusion, to actually also be true. Andrew, in particular, has done this repeatedly, and reconciles it by calling it an ambiguous paradox, and then gives it a big ole hug. My point here has been that one never turns around to embrace illusion again, even when the mountain reappears. It reappears as what it is, not what it was once imagined to be, or what we talk about it being in a smaller context. What I adhere to is the position of seeing no illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 23:44:26 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 23:47:16 GMT -5
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. Half the time I don't know what thread I'm in, so L can just lead me around like a puppy on a leash and I'll pee on whatever post is in front of me. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 23:52:37 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? So what is the 'no mountain' perspective?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 22, 2014 23:55:41 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. If you had left your baggage on the mountain before coming down, you would find there is a mountain again, but no volition/path/doer. So from your position of 'mountain again', there would still be no volition/path/doer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 23:59:46 GMT -5
No, i don't recall. Further, the 'no mountain' position would be akin to what we've called the fundamentalist neo advaita position. It's also a stage that most nonduality type seekers seem to go through, and while I know you see some of these peeps lurking about here (maybe even me), I don't, so I would have nobody to address from a 'no mountain' position. This was the conversation: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3330/fundamentalism-nonduality-advaita-teachings?page=3#ixzz2rC4RwPReSeems you DO see some folks here to address from a 'no mountain' position after all...? Or has that changed...? [/b] if real/illusive no longer figures in , then it really doesn't matter one way or the other, does it? We could 'call' something real or illusive and calling it that, would have no bearing on anything. That's all that equally real or illusive means. Right, but In the analogy, the mountain IS what you were previously calling an illusion. And no, it never reappears as something "imaged" to be anything than what it is, (experience at face value) ...the seeing is now far more expansive, but nevertheless, the mountain is there, as an integral and necessary part of the 'whole' picture. What you adhere to is a position where the delineation between illusion and actual is important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 0:00:16 GMT -5
Thanks for weighing in E. I appreciate it. I guess i should have just asked you to start with. Half the time I don't know what thread I'm in, so L can just lead me around like a puppy on a leash and I'll pee on whatever post is in front of me. Hehe. Haha...yup, can relate to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 0:01:45 GMT -5
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. 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. False and irrelevant are very, very different things when it comes to all of this.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 0:06:39 GMT -5
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.Yup
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 0:09:12 GMT -5
To argue that there is NO volitional person, no path, no doer, IS to speak from the 'no mountain' position. If you had left your baggage on the mountain before coming down, you would find there is a mountain again, but no volition/path/doer. So from your position of 'mountain again', there would still be no volition/path/doer. Volition, doing and paths, do not actually disappear, they are simply not focused upon or attached to in the way they once were....as actualities of reality. But by the same token, nor are they focused upon or attached to as fully absent or false. The sense of being a volitional doer or engaging with a path, can be visited at any time, as an experience, without any danger of attaching to it as a belief about reality. Thus, there is no need to assert, "there is no this or no that" as though it were true and as though it were very, very important. AT the point of 2nd mountain, our peace is no longer dependent upon framing reality in any particular way. it's all just experience, fully allowed at face value...no stories 'about' it necessary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2014 0:27:30 GMT -5
No, i don't recall. Further, the 'no mountain' position would be akin to what we've called the fundamentalist neo advaita position. It's also a stage that most nonduality type seekers seem to go through, and while I know you see some of these peeps lurking about here (maybe even me), I don't, so I would have nobody to address from a 'no mountain' position. This was the conversation: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3330/fundamentalism-nonduality-advaita-teachings?page=3#ixzz2rC4RwPReSeems you DO see some folks here to address from a 'no mountain' position after all...? Or has that changed...? [/b] [/quote] Okay, I think I understand that particular contortion of the analogy now. I'm on the mountain yelling down and kicking stones down on the climbers. Hehe. I forgot your point about that. If it has no bearing on anything, why call it equally real or illusive? From my perspective, you do that so that you can embrace and include the illusion again in the name of inclusion. So now it sounds like we're in agreement. Are we done with that now? Illusion?...What illusion?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 2:43:17 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? So what is the 'no mountain' perspective? Seems to me to be contextual and it also seems to me figgles is referring to something different here than what you were referring to in what she found in the archive (** nods and smiles at figgles **). To start with, "no mountain" itself is a bit of a doggeral. It's obviously based on something from Zen: From here: Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.
Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters.(Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 24)Now I've never practiced Zen, but ... < >... obviously, speaking about Zen is not Zen. It seems to me that the Zen aphorism is a bit more nuanced than as we've used it, and that to reduce it to a meme based on the personal/impersonal dichotomy is reductive. </ > What I took you to mean in the quote by "people climbing the no-mountain mountain" would be an individual seeking to become an enlightened person. What I took figgles to mean by it is as you described to her, someone caught in Foster's trap. Essentially, she's using "mountain" as a place-holder for "person", which is incredibly reductive of the original Zen aphorism. Her response to focusing on the fate of the person during an abstraction of a path was interesting: 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. in that she ventures the first thought, the first swing of the butcher's blade and comes up with 1) Person 2) Volition 3) Path ... and then protested that they are inseparable when I focused on the first and central idea, the person. That's just a mind-based re-integration of the original mind-based distinctions, and the fact is that most people probably go through life never considering whether or not they have free will, so obviously the idea of a person is completely independent from the idea of volition. Classic example of figgles using the idea of a path to put someone she's debating with behind her on it, which is a silly amount of ironic given that the path in question is circular. Also an example of diving into the river of thought, waving to someone on the shore "hey the water's fine!" and then exclaiming ... "look at you! you're all wet!" when they dive in to follow
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 2:50:58 GMT -5
Illusion?...What illusion? This is just a repeat of what they've been telling you you think for the past year now. Mercifully it only took to page four this time.
|
|