|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 6, 2014 19:45:17 GMT -5
What's your definition of illusion? That which is not what it appears to be. So then it seems to be and that's all I am saying. What makes you say it is not what it seems to be? I can't say that nor can I say it is what it seems to be. It simply is.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2014 20:04:32 GMT -5
That which is not what it appears to be. So then it seems to be and that's all I am saying. What makes you say it is not what it seems to be? I can't say that nor can I say it is what it seems to be. It simply is. Well.....I can.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 6, 2014 20:19:33 GMT -5
So then it seems to be and that's all I am saying. What makes you say it is not what it seems to be? I can't say that nor can I say it is what it seems to be. It simply is. Well.....I can. Lol but seriously I wasn't showing my ignorance. I was describing the nature of things, of what we are, of this. There is nothing to know, by nature. It's just the way it is and it even makes sense when one catches a glimpse of emptiness. A glass with no sides that holds what it holds in it. Knowing is limiting what has no limits. Seeing followed by knowing is also limiting what is without limits.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 6, 2014 20:32:42 GMT -5
Why do you think that what is experienced is illusion? Because I'm being still and knowing. I'd (** muttley snicker **) but it's no joke.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 6, 2014 20:37:25 GMT -5
What's your definition of illusion? That which is not what it appears to be. ... and this (nonduality) is a negation, but it's not a negation of the individual.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 6, 2014 21:34:04 GMT -5
Why do you think that what is experienced is illusion? What is experienced is an illusion because it always appears with an opposite; the experiencer. Neither of these 'two' really are, because they are SO inseparable that what is always more fundamentally the case (and therefore more TRUE) is a single seamless continuum of what I will call here 'pure experiencing', that is OF Reality, BY Reality. What is experienced is experienced.. 'opposite' is 'your' interpretation, as a unique experiencer.. the rest of your story about the experience is interesting..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2014 22:15:14 GMT -5
Well.....I can. Lol but seriously I wasn't showing my ignorance. I was describing the nature of things, of what we are, of this. There is nothing to know, by nature. It's just the way it is and it even makes sense when one catches a glimpse of emptiness. A glass with no sides that holds what it holds in it. Knowing is limiting what has no limits. Seeing followed by knowing is also limiting what is without limits. How do you know? Serially, we cannot talk about not knowing in that way. We can't say we don't know if something is what we think it is or not. At that point the cat's out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, the fat lady is finishing up her aria. We already think we know what something is or we wouldn't be talking about how we don't know that. This is where Steve trips up when he implies we can unknow what we think we know, and why Q turns away in disgust at hearing that, and wanders off to watch porn. We can talk about not knowing as a realization about the nature of ideas, but we can't search the skies wistfully and say, 'Golly,I can't say whether it's what I think it is or not'. Not knowing is the state at the precise point between perceiving, and perceiving something. An illusion is a different kettle of fish. Illusion happens when we see something with the mind that is not apparent to the senses. I was pointing out to Tzu how the still mind doesn't come to all sorts of imaginative conclusions about what is being perceived, like 'Dude! There are two separate, volitional persons and I am he as you are he as you are me and we all live together in a yellow submarine'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2014 22:28:40 GMT -5
That which is not what it appears to be. ... and this (nonduality) is a negation, but it's not a negation of the individual. Yeah, it's the negation of the individual as a self directed center. It's not that the separate person has no free will, it's that there is no separate person. The individuation never becomes a real boy. (Spoiler alert!) It was Geppetto all along.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 0:00:34 GMT -5
... and this (nonduality) is a negation, but it's not a negation of the individual. Yeah, it's the negation of the individual as a self directed center. It's not that the separate person has no free will, it's that there is no separate person. The individuation never becomes a real boy. (Spoiler alert!) It was Geppetto all along. ... imo it's enough to say that nonduality negates the separation between the individual and what commonly appears to the individual as what they're not, and yes, there's no argument for an isolated center of volition without first establishing, by argument, the isolation. For the thinking/feeling mind, the "interconnected Whole" is enough of a meaning for nonduality, and the terminals of the connections are enough to establish that isolation. But really, the objectified "Whole", which is either seen as consequence of or the source of the interconnectivity, and the interconnections, are just pale reflections of what nonduality points toward. "Whole" and/or interconnectness are the presence that masquerades for that subtle and impossible to elucidate absence that the conversation keeps coming back to.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 0:12:53 GMT -5
Lol but seriously I wasn't showing my ignorance. I was describing the nature of things, of what we are, of this. There is nothing to know, by nature. It's just the way it is and it even makes sense when one catches a glimpse of emptiness. A glass with no sides that holds what it holds in it. Knowing is limiting what has no limits. Seeing followed by knowing is also limiting what is without limits. How do you know? Serially, we cannot talk about not knowing in that way. We can't say we don't know if something is what we think it is or not. At that point the cat's out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, the fat lady is finishing up her aria. We already think we know what something is or we wouldn't be talking about how we don't know that. This is where Steve trips up when he implies we can unknow what we think we know, and why Q turns away in disgust at hearing that, and wanders off to watch porn. We can talk about not knowing as a realization about the nature of ideas, but we can't search the skies wistfully and say, 'Golly,I can't say whether it's what I think it is or not'. Not knowing is the state at the precise point between perceiving, and perceiving something. An illusion is a different kettle of fish. Illusion happens when we see something with the mind that is not apparent to the senses. I was pointing out to Tzu how the still mind doesn't come to all sorts of imaginative conclusions about what is being perceived, like 'Dude! There are two separate, volitional persons and I am he as you are he as you are me and we all live together in a yellow submarine'. The choir refrains: btw, that's the cue for a literalist to start quoting from the dictionary ...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2014 0:49:07 GMT -5
Yeah, it's the negation of the individual as a self directed center. It's not that the separate person has no free will, it's that there is no separate person. The individuation never becomes a real boy. (Spoiler alert!) It was Geppetto all along. ... imo it's enough to say that nonduality negates the separation between the individual and what commonly appears to the individual as what they're not, and yes, there's no argument for an isolated center of volition without first establishing, by argument, the isolation. For the thinking/feeling mind, the "interconnected Whole" is enough of a meaning for nonduality, and the terminals of the connections are enough to establish that isolation. But really, the objectified "Whole", which is either seen as consequence of or the source of the interconnectivity, and the interconnections, are just pale reflections of what nonduality points toward. "Whole" and/or interconnectness are the presence that masquerades for that subtle and impossible to elucidate absence that the conversation keeps coming back to. That's why I argue so strongly against the idea of interconnected parts. It's not that there isn't a connection, but rather that there are no parts to be connected. Oneness is not a connection between anything, and there is no unification possible because there were never any parts to be unified. It's difficult for me to understand why it's difficult to understand , so I tend to believe there's no interest in understanding. If that's true, there's also no point in talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2014 0:57:10 GMT -5
How do you know? Serially, we cannot talk about not knowing in that way. We can't say we don't know if something is what we think it is or not. At that point the cat's out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, the fat lady is finishing up her aria. We already think we know what something is or we wouldn't be talking about how we don't know that. This is where Steve trips up when he implies we can unknow what we think we know, and why Q turns away in disgust at hearing that, and wanders off to watch porn. We can talk about not knowing as a realization about the nature of ideas, but we can't search the skies wistfully and say, 'Golly,I can't say whether it's what I think it is or not'. Not knowing is the state at the precise point between perceiving, and perceiving something. An illusion is a different kettle of fish. Illusion happens when we see something with the mind that is not apparent to the senses. I was pointing out to Tzu how the still mind doesn't come to all sorts of imaginative conclusions about what is being perceived, like 'Dude! There are two separate, volitional persons and I am he as you are he as you are me and we all live together in a yellow submarine'. The choir refrains: btw, that's the cue for a literalist to start quoting from the dictionary ... Right, there is no information to know about that which is prior to information. The Trooph is not an idea. (First person who cracks open Webster's gets shot with Silver's sniper rifle.)
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 7, 2014 1:21:41 GMT -5
What is experienced is an illusion because it always appears with an opposite; the experiencer. Neither of these 'two' really are, because they are SO inseparable that what is always more fundamentally the case (and therefore more TRUE) is a single seamless continuum of what I will call here 'pure experiencing', that is OF Reality, BY Reality. What is experienced is experienced.. 'opposite' is 'your' interpretation, as a unique experiencer.. the rest of your story about the experience is interesting.. Without the seer, the seen can not be (and therefore is not) seen. Without the seen, the seer can not (and therefore does not) see. Neither can ever stand in the absence of the other. The utter inseparabillity of this pair implies that both are fundamentally of the same one, and are not actually two 100% different, independently existing absolutes. In other words, neither REALLY exist. The same is true of change and changelessness, movement and stillness, form and emptiness, sound and silence, chaos and order, and so on. The 'one', by its intrinsically choiceless nature to effortlessly experience the 'one' (itself, obviously), is the 'cause' of the 'effect' that is apparently 'two ones' The duality of the cause and the effect is what I call the 'final duality'. It isn't real either.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 1:22:49 GMT -5
... imo it's enough to say that nonduality negates the separation between the individual and what commonly appears to the individual as what they're not, and yes, there's no argument for an isolated center of volition without first establishing, by argument, the isolation. For the thinking/feeling mind, the "interconnected Whole" is enough of a meaning for nonduality, and the terminals of the connections are enough to establish that isolation. But really, the objectified "Whole", which is either seen as consequence of or the source of the interconnectivity, and the interconnections, are just pale reflections of what nonduality points toward. "Whole" and/or interconnectness are the presence that masquerades for that subtle and impossible to elucidate absence that the conversation keeps coming back to. That's why I argue so strongly against the idea of interconnected parts. It's not that there isn't a connection, but rather that there are no parts to be connected. Oneness is not a connection between anything, and there is no unification possible because there were never any parts to be unified. It's difficult for me to understand why it's difficult to understand , so I tend to believe there's no interest in understanding. If that's true, there's also no point in talking about it. Not so much difficult to understand but rather a subtle distinction. If given some attention it leaves the objectifier in an uncomfortable position: perhaps accepting the proposition they might let go of a comfy cozy conceptual security blanket. Having gone through my own whollier than thou phase, I know what that's like ... the empty hand where a big sloppy dripping ice cream cone used to be don't seem so appetizin'. Why turn away from all of those great ideas for no apparent reason? I mean, aren't they just common sense? Aren't they what any fool can see for themselves just by observing the world? The new-age Hole does have alot to offer -- a theory of ethics based on the idea of disguised self-harm, explanations for synchronicity, magic and all manner of whackerdoodlism, a reconciliation between religion and science, and a reason for everyone to love one another. It's all a bunch of colorful scarves that a magician pulls out of his one-ended stick. Seeing the world as a bunch of ephemeral wavvy gravy all held together by invisible strands of angel hair is at least arguably better than perceiving a bunch of disjointed and unrelated objects, and the interconnected wholeness of the senses is, as qualified, the legitimate conceptual shadow of what nonduality points toward, but it ain't the real deal -- and that's maybe why it might be worth talking about it: to call it out for what it is .. .. or maybe, to at least have a good laugh about it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 2:48:36 GMT -5
The choir refrains: btw, that's the cue for a literalist to start quoting from the dictionary ... Right, there is no information to know about that which is prior to information. The Trooph is not an idea. (First person who cracks open Webster's gets shot with Silver's sniper rifle.) The hyperologist says in reply: "The idea that the truth isn't an idea is just another idea and if you say it's true then you contradict yourself. What? It's a "pointer"?? No, that's just a bunch of spiritual mumbo-jumbo. Assume the positionless position of humility and remain open to conceptual possibilities that you haven't encountered yet." That's why the insight that you state as "no idea is ultimately true" is important, and while it's got an intellectual shadow that can be grasped, that shadow can be mishandled, because the insight is not of an intellectual nature.
|
|