|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 22:55:29 GMT -5
Constantly prescribing "be still and know" assumes the role of teacher.
Whether or not one is qualified to write out the prescription can be inferred from the timing of it and also what is said, if anything, in reply to one who fails to follow it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 22:58:02 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 laughter on Apr 7, 2014 23:01:16 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.. "War cry", huh? Can't take a joke much?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2014 23:06:14 GMT -5
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! There are, of course, consequences.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 23:09:07 GMT -5
The choir refrains: btw, that's the cue for a literalist to start quoting from the dictionary ... I've heard the literalists are all on hiatus. Nah, not so much, it's just that the ones that are left tend to be cagey in expressing the reaction. It's always amusing to watch the no brainer of ineffability, the elegantly simple idea of the inconceivable, unknowingly (unconsciously) mangled ... there's seems to me a feeling of unease that underlies the reaction to it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 23:13:19 GMT -5
The seeing that is talked about does not refer to the physical sense of seeing. That's right, it's all in your mind, beliefs built on imaginings.. if you understood, you would realize there's no difference between physical, and what you think you know.. but, you're still attached to 'thinking'.. TMT
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2014 23:37:15 GMT -5
I'd say that the distinction between 2 and 3 is subjective. The difference is at best subtle if the pointer is followed, or stark if it's rejected. From what I've seen in my forum career the rejection can come in the way of over thinking nonduality or a visceral reaction to the perceived implication of individual negation. This isn't to claim that every rejection of the pointer need necessarily fall into one of these boxes, but ... well .. What nonduality points to doesn't touch the individual, but can lead to a perspective on the idea of the individual that some find controversial. In American culture the most common expression of identity is based on an aggregate of history, occupation, association and physicality. Nonduality obviously points away from that. Beyond the common cultural ideas of selfhood there is the question of how the sense of identity fits in with the individual experience of cognition and emotion. Nonduality points away from those associations as well, and towards an absence of association in general. In one good deep breath we can answer the question "Do you or don't you exist?", and it's the one question that can be answered with absolute certainty and with no reference to any sort of relative polarity. It's actually pretty clear. Oneness is the case, but not non-duality. Non-duality is just a collection of pointers. Some might even call it a teaching. I don't call it a teaching because it does not only lack specific doing suggestions but doesn't even cater to the teacher/student divide in the first place. Which means there's no room for practices and processes. And calling non-duality a mere idea isn't correct either because non-duality describes what's actually the case with the help of pointers. Yeah, a set of pointers works for me. There's no reason to attack nonduality as though it's a false idea or truth or condition. The term, itself, doesn't have to scare anybody. Oneness, of course, is terrifying to imaginary separate, volitional persons.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 23:41:28 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.. When the one that imagines himself to look with a still mind sees separate volitional persons sleeping and dreaming and deliberately choosing and doing all kinds of things and calls that what's actually happening, then we have a brave new spirituality. Then confusion is clarity, bondage is freedom, illusion is actual, false is real and noisy is still. And that's where Tzuth and Andrewism meet. They really only appear to diverge to begin with, and the appearance of that divergence is built in by way of the confusion at the center of the conceptual structure. The limited is taken as limitless, and so the supposed openness to new conceptual understandings -- the reverently proclaimed humility of the endless search -- becomes a rejection of the self evidence that mind can only ever deliver approximations, and the relative becomes the absolute. As you say, in the brave new spirituality, the truth becomes a lie and a lie becomes the truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2014 23:45:40 GMT -5
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. At least not with those who can't help but personalize everything. That's why sincerity is important; an interest in the truth regardless of whether or not it serves ME.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 7, 2014 23:56:48 GMT -5
.. uhm, well .. .. that's sounds very ... ah ... practical .. thanks! There are, of course, consequences. Serves that guy right for violatin' Unicity Town Ordinance 3.14!!
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 8, 2014 1:35:23 GMT -5
That was excellent. Nice to hear the word "enlightenment" talked about so directly. I especially like this: "A sense of separation can still arise—being angry, defensive, worried or hurt. That kind of self-contraction can still arise. No one is doing it. It happens out of infinite causes and conditions. It isn't personal. A natural interest in seeing through this habit and waking up from it also seems to arise here, and that inquiry and exploration can take various forms. All of that also happens out of infinite causes and conditions. No one is doing any of it." So how about practices done to get accident prone? Yeah, sure - why not? Infinite causes and conditions, infinite outcomes, none of it personal. No guarantees, though.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 5:03:49 GMT -5
What is there that is not reality? The question of there being one or two isn't the issue. They both are and they are as they are...unless one wants to deny it. Again, not saying what they are, just saying that they are. Pay attention to context. Don't mix contexts. An appearance can't stand by itself. It doesn't exist in its own right. It's like the moon, it only shines with borrowed light but not by itself. Pay attention? Lol What is is two sided. On one side the aware empty full of capacity space in which what arises on the other side.....this. Yes nothing stands on itself but it is as real as anything else. It is part of what I am.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 8, 2014 5:05:52 GMT -5
That's right, it's all in your mind, beliefs built on imaginings.. if you understood, you would realize there's no difference between physical, and what you think you know.. but, you're still attached to 'thinking'.. Everything in your post is the product of thinking, so what qualm do you have with thinking? I sense you have an enormous attatchment to your own solitary perspective and that you would be best served in letting it go. It's pretty obvious by your posts that you are a contrarian and are fixated on your inflated sense of self. Now, examine your own post.. and compare it to what it is trying to describe, the similarities are obvious.. i have no qualm with thinking, it is the attachment to thoughts/words that distracts the experiencer from what is actually happening.. The vast majority of the differences seen between me and the club is in an open forum where the club presents its understandings and i counter with my understandings, the club aggressively retaliates against those not conforming to the understandings they are attached to.. The fundamental difference between my perspective and the club's is that they insist that certain phrases and words point to 'The Truth', and.. my perspective is that there is no 'Truth', there is existence happening, and if we simply pay attention without insisting that our interpretations are right and/or wrong, we will experience much more of what 'is' than by insisting certain words/phrases must be revered.. the club won't engage in open honest dialogue that is not governed by their understandings and their sacred words.. it is a contracted and constricted misunderstanding of openness and liberation..
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 6:16:56 GMT -5
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. A reflection only yes, as nothing is not something. The reference to absence, for example, with the word emptiness, can only ever be indirect. Im sorry but it is not only a reflection, it reflects. To say it is 'only' a reflection is not correct. Emptiness needs to be seen to understand this side of it. Emptiness is aware and full of potential or capacity. What arises from it...is it. There is nothing that is not it.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 6:26:04 GMT -5
It's actually pretty clear. Oneness is the case, but not non-duality. Non-duality is just a collection of pointers. Some might even call it a teaching. I don't call it a teaching because it does not only lack specific doing suggestions but doesn't even cater to the teacher/student divide in the first place. Which means there's no room for practices and processes. And calling non-duality a mere idea isn't correct either because non-duality describes what's actually the case with the help of pointers. Yeah, a set of pointers works for me. There's no reason to attack nonduality as though it's a false idea or truth or condition. The term, itself, doesn't have to scare anybody. Oneness, of course, is terrifying to imaginary separate, volitional persons. Let's keep it real. I don't see non-duality itself being attacked. I don't see seperateness itself being defended. I see people observing seperateness and people imagining oneness. We all observe in ourselves the common foundation to all that arises but we don't observe being all that arises so there is this thing, call it seperateness or call it whatever, that we simply observe and remain in awe of it. Calling it an illusion might just be an attempt to make known what isn't know.... cuz THAT is what is terrifying. Kinda like free falling. Conversely there is this common foundation or aware space that we are and we sense the commoness of it but we don't observe being one so here again we remain in awe or we try and imagine what we don't know. Where by nature there is nothing to know.
|
|