|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 9:01:50 GMT -5
 <--- pay attention to the mountains It's a literal depiction of the appearance of the 2nd mountain from along the circular path. The question is, how can she not recognize that this rigid conceptual structure that involves a serious bit of hyperminding isn't one of these? 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. This is a recursive self-contradiction. How anyone can't see this for what it is is simply beyond me man. She's telling a story about how stories aren't necessary and doesn't see that as a story.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 10:41:39 GMT -5
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.Rather than respond to all the messages here, I will focus on this one, because this is pretty close to the heart of the issue. What you said here is incorrect, and hints strongly at fundamentalism. Would you like me to try and explain why? Sure, but I can almost guarantee that what you have to say will be a great example of what the aphorism refers to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 10:43:23 GMT -5
Nah....embracing and including are not strived for or even aimed for like that, through a particular way of framing reality. RAther, Embracing and including are non-doings, just the natural result of a particular way of seeing...a particular vantage point. It's a vantage point where the importance of the delineation between actual/illusive falls away. When the importance of delineating falls away, there is no important consequence anymore...nothing at stake. Prior to that, much depends upon making that delineation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 10:47:40 GMT -5
It's a literal depiction of the appearance of the 2nd mountain from along the circular path. The question is, how can she not recognize that this rigid conceptual structure that involves a serious bit of hyperminding isn't one of these? This is a recursive self-contradiction. How anyone can't see this for what it is is simply beyond me man. She's telling a story about how stories aren't necessary and doesn't see that as a story. A description of a path is of course, a story of a sort, but a generalized and thereby impersonalized version. To say that a path can't guarantee success, to say that it's not the path that leads directly to realization is a recognition of the uniqueness of every perspective. It expresses an apparent paradox that sits at the crux of where the ideas of the personal and the impersonal intertwine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 10:53:01 GMT -5
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. I'm not framing reality with the idea that there is no volitional doer, and I'm also not visiting the sense of it as though it's still there to be experienced. If you see clearly that you're not a hippopotamus, you can't just visit that sense of being a hippopotamus anytime you want. Some things are lost, and they're lost for good. They're called illusions, and good riddance to them. The only way you can 'visit' the sense of being a volitional doer is if deep down you still believe you are one. That sense is entirely belief driven. Every time you come to this forum to speak about the things you do, you do so 'as if' there were actually a path. It could be said that in speaking to folks 'as though' there was a path, as if your words might have some impact upon their freedom, you yourself visit being that hippopotamus, that you insist you know you are not. In speaking as you do here, you 'engage' with 'a path.' You behave 'as if' there is one. It's the same with a volitional doer. To behave 'as if' there were one, is to visit with the experience of 'freely choosing and doing.' That's a far cry from, believing that what I am, is a volitional doer, period. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 10:53:59 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. Was that really necessary to the conversation? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 10:56:40 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I lost track of why we're even talking about mountains but I'm pretty sure we're making them out of mole hills. What IS interesting is the notion that once illusions are seen for what they are, they can be engaged and visited and played with and made equally true/false and such. That would be like riding a camel out to the oasis to get a drink after realizing it's a mirage, or pretending to be frightened by a snake that we already know is a rope, or bask in the beauty of a flower in a bush that we already know is a piece of plastic. **Gives a nod and a wink to Silver** Or......frequently posting on a spirituality forum, as though there were a path, when we say we have seen that there is none? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2014 10:56:51 GMT -5
Rather than respond to all the messages here, I will focus on this one, because this is pretty close to the heart of the issue. What you said here is incorrect, and hints strongly at fundamentalism. Would you like me to try and explain why? Sure, but I can almost guarantee that what you have to say will be a great example of what the aphorism refers to. Your thought structure reveals that in the collapsing of the mental boundary, you perpetuate and maintain the boundary. In this sense, it is 'self-generating'. It cannot be defeated. Its an absolute solid conceptual bedrock, though it creates an illusion of being otherwise. Its the same as the 'nothing is ultimately true' trick. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 23, 2014 10:57:54 GMT -5
A description of a path is of course, a story of a sort, but a generalized and thereby impersonalized version. To say that a path can't guarantee success, to say that it's not the path that leads directly to realization is a recognition of the uniqueness of every perspective. It expresses an apparent paradox that sits at the crux of where the ideas of the personal and the impersonal intertwine. Reality in itself is not paradoxical and also not just a play of ideas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 10:58:12 GMT -5
The term 'silence' is not used to indicate an absence of noise. Duh.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 11:00:22 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I lost track of why we're even talking about mountains but I'm pretty sure we're making them out of mole hills. What IS interesting is the notion that once illusions are seen for what they are, they can be engaged and visited and played with and made equally true/false and such. That would be like riding a camel out to the oasis to get a drink after realizing it's a mirage, or pretending to be frightened by a snake that we already know is a rope, or bask in the beauty of a flower in a bush that we already know is a piece of plastic. **Gives a nod and a wink to Silver**  <---- Figs at the oasis Nope...that's Reefs on the forum.....vehemently insisting there is no path or practice that leads to realization, but sharing his 'wisdom' as though there is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 11:02:49 GMT -5
Truth/falsity don't have anything to do with attachment. When much depends upon making that delineation, it sure does. It IS the attachment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 11:04:37 GMT -5
This is a recursive self-contradiction. How anyone can't see this for what it is is simply beyond me man. She's telling a story about how stories aren't necessary and doesn't see that as a story. You assume too much. Of course, it's ALL stories. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 11:23:58 GMT -5
A description of a path is of course, a story of a sort, but a generalized and thereby impersonalized version. To say that a path can't guarantee success, to say that it's not the path that leads directly to realization is a recognition of the uniqueness of every perspective. It expresses an apparent paradox that sits at the crux of where the ideas of the personal and the impersonal intertwine. Reality in itself is not paradoxical and also not just a play of ideas. You sound pretty darned certain 'bout that.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2014 11:36:09 GMT -5
This is a recursive self-contradiction. How anyone can't see this for what it is is simply beyond me man. She's telling a story about how stories aren't necessary and doesn't see that as a story. You assume too much. Of course, it's ALL stories. Are you aware of the self-contradiction? Paradoxes appear when we speak about reality, but the question is, are you aware of them when you express the underlying contradiction? |
|
