|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 15:30:51 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'. I'm not talking about not knowing. I'm talking about something that has no boundaries so in that sense cannot be known..... That's essentially what "prior-to mind", "beyond mind" and "the ineffable" are referring to, but notice that boundlessness can never refer to a " something". fully because of its nature. It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing. To see it is to understand what I mean. Not knowing is grossly misunderstood Once we start talking about "it's nature", by your own reasoning, "what" we're talking about can never be "known" in the sense of an expression of information. The idea of "full" or "partial" simply doesn't apply. To borrow an idea from mathematics by way of metaphor it's often written that 1/0 = ?, but there is a subtle distinction: ? is actually just a practical convenience, and the more precise expression is that 1/0 is undefined.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 15:33:28 GMT -5
Is "unicity" like some town in Oregon where they banned all the cars and make peeps ride unicycles??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 15:44:09 GMT -5
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. That is mind-play, dismissing what 'is', in favor of the story in your mind.. when you construct 'seer' and 'seen' as players in your story, you can tell the story any way you 'choose'.. in the silent stillness the seer's awareness expands into the whole and 'seeing' becomes a constricted description of the sensing that happens.. Sure, just like this: There is always the 'part', the experiencer, that is the source of awareness, (iow "seer") without which there is none.. there is always the whole, that which the part is, and that which is the part.. (iow "seen") the parts interact in an interconnected symphony of Life, of existence.. there is no symphony without the parts interacting.. (iow "story")
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 15:47:46 GMT -5
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. Yeah, the hyperologist can't know where the boundary of thinking/reasoning is without the insight, so he naturally crosses over instead of stopping to look. A good rule of thumb is to always stop and look. .. uhm, well .. .. that's sounds very ... ah ... practical .. thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 15:54:35 GMT -5
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. That is mind-play, dismissing what 'is', in favor of the story in your mind.. when you construct 'seer' and 'seen' as players in your story, you can tell the story any way you 'choose'.. in the silent stillness the seer's awareness expands into the whole and 'seeing' becomes a constricted description of then sensing that happens.. There is always the 'part', the experiencer, that is the source of awareness, without which there is none.. there is always the whole, that which the part is, and that which is the part.. the parts interact in an interconnected symphony of Life, of existence.. there is no symphony without the parts interacting.. The 'final dulaity', as you say, is the contrast between that which 'is' and the absence of that which 'is', isness and its absence.. What is actually happening is real, but few people are aware of it.. most are prisoners of the own stories, preferring the story to the happening.. That's quite a story, that symphony analogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 15:58:57 GMT -5
Is "unicity" like some town in Oregon where they banned all the cars and make peeps ride unicycles?? yes, except on tuesdays when they ride unicorns while wearing unitards.x)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 16:12:13 GMT -5
Is "unicity" like some town in Oregon where they banned all the cars and make peeps ride unicycles?? yes, except on tuesdays when they ride unicorns while wearing unitards.x)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 7, 2014 18:07:43 GMT -5
When the clarity of a still mind's awareness reveals what is actually happening, there is no longer any "prior-to mind", "beyond mind" and "the ineffable", those are let go, seen for what they are: the need to say something about which you know nothing..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 18:23:45 GMT -5
When the clarity of a still mind's awareness reveals what is actually happening, there is no longer any "prior-to mind", "beyond mind" and "the ineffable", those are let go, seen for what they are: the need to say something about which you know nothing.. I swear, someday I'm going to open a fortune cookie and it will read "The clarity of a still minds awareness..."
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 7, 2014 20:03:18 GMT -5
When the clarity of a still mind's awareness reveals what is actually happening, there is no longer any "prior-to mind", "beyond mind" and "the ineffable", those are let go, seen for what they are: the need to say something about which you know nothing.. I swear, someday I'm going to open a fortune cookie and it will read "The clarity of a still minds awareness..." I swear, someday i'm going to open a fortune cookie, and it's will read "This is an illusion, and you're not real".. then, when i try to convince the the angry cashier that the not real customer isn't going to pay the illusion, we'll see how that fortune works out.. Un'fortune'ately, it's only me that uses that phrase, but.. the nonduality/oneness/not-real-illusion mantra is the club's war-cry, and.. you seem to have more tolerance for those that use harsher tactics, when you approve of the message they insist is so..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 20:10:49 GMT -5
I swear, someday I'm going to open a fortune cookie and it will read "The clarity of a still minds awareness..." I swear, someday i'm going to open a fortune cookie, and it's will read "This is an illusion, and you're not real".. then, when i try to convince the the angry cashier that the not real customer isn't going to pay the illusion, we'll see how that fortune works out.. Un'fortune'ately, it's only me that uses that phrase, but.. the nonduality/oneness/not-real-illusion mantra is the club's war-cry, and.. you seem to have more tolerance for those that use harsher tactics, when you approve of the message they insist is so.. Is that your illusion?
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 7, 2014 20:17:09 GMT -5
I'm not talking about not knowing. I'm talking about something that has no boundaries so in that sense cannot be known..... That's essentially what "prior-to mind", "beyond mind" and "the ineffable" are referring to, but notice that boundlessness can never refer to a " something". fully because of its nature. It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing. To see it is to understand what I mean. Not knowing is grossly misunderstood Once we start talking about "it's nature", by your own reasoning, "what" we're talking about can never be "known" in the sense of an expression of information. The idea of "full" or "partial" simply doesn't apply. To borrow an idea from mathematics by way of metaphor it's often written that 1/0 = ?, but there is a subtle distinction: ? is actually just a practical convenience, and the more precise expression is that 1/0 is undefined. It's nature is capacity and it can be known but naturally capacity has no limits and therefore is wide open. This is a reflection of it and this is wide open as well.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2014 20:47:36 GMT -5
We all experience being seperate. We all experience making choices. We all experience a personality. Why can't we stop there? I am wide awake and none of those qualities, here, have gone away nor has there come forth an explanation other than they are included in what arises from emptiness. To cling to them and/ or to deny them is making claim to a mystery that there is no claim. I agree with Tzu ....non-duality is an idea except I would add that it is the idea of non-duality that is an idea and that is what is being talked about here That doesn't sound 'wide awake'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 7, 2014 20:50:03 GMT -5
We all experience being seperate. We all experience making choices. We all experience a personality. Why can't we stop there? I am wide awake and none of those qualities, here, have gone away nor has there come forth an explanation other than they are included in what arises from emptiness. To cling to them and/ or to deny them is making claim to a mystery that there is no claim. I agree with Tzu ....non-duality is an idea except I would add that it is the idea of non-duality that is an idea and that is what is being talked about here Hi WS: Thanks.. it's confusing to me as to how someone has the direct experiences of being separate, making choices, and self-awareness as a unique 'person', then begins imagining a story that intends to negate their 'self'-awareness, which is the source of their imaginings.. the story about 'no separate volitional person', is volitionally imagined/chosen/believed by a separate person who then tries to convince other separate persons to agree.. and yet, it is all happening like s single living organism evolving, parts AND whole interacting in the experience of existence.. it's really simple, be still and know.. it's really not helpful to insist that the 'separate volitional person' who would benefit from the experience of stillness is not real.. bump... How about an open honest and unconditionally sincere discussion about how seeing persons sleeping and dreaming and deliberately choosing is looking with a still mind but just seeing a a body lying somewhere and just seeing choosing happening is not looking with a still mind but imagining things and being attached to beliefs? Your assertion sounds absolutely counter-intuitive. Maybe you can explain why adding separate volitional persons to the equation indicates no attachment to beliefs and why not having to add separate volitional persons to the equation indicates attachment to beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 7, 2014 20:51:08 GMT -5
We all experience being seperate. We all experience making choices. We all experience a personality. Why can't we stop there? I am wide awake and none of those qualities, here, have gone away nor has there come forth an explanation other than they are included in what arises from emptiness. To cling to them and/ or to deny them is making claim to a mystery that there is no claim. I agree with Tzu ....non-duality is an idea except I would add that it is the idea of non-duality that is an idea and that is what is being talked about here That doesn't sound 'wide awake'. That's the beauty of it though......I'm unshakable in this regard.
|
|