Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 6:46:56 GMT -5
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.. the phrase "what is" is another way of saying "truth", since by definition the truth is "what is". You assert that there is no truth, yet advocate acceptance of what is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2014 7:39:54 GMT -5
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. Emptiness doesn't understand, there is nothing to understand about emptiness and to say that "emptiness must be seen" implies the presence of something perceived rather than an absence ... but an absence is not the presence of anything. Awareness implicates identity, and anything that is identified as "it", regardless if the one so aware includes themselves within "it", is a statement of identity that is bounded.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 9:03:49 GMT -5
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. Emptiness doesn't understand, there is nothing to understand about emptiness and to say that "emptiness must be seen" implies the presence of something perceived rather than an absence ... but an absence is not the presence of anything. Awareness implicates identity, and anything that is identified as "it", regardless if the one so aware includes themselves within "it", is a statement of identity that is bounded. Maybe in a text book but when I look, I see what I am and it is emptiness which I describe as aware and full of capacity. There is no question about it. Nothing is more clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2014 10:03:32 GMT -5
There are, of course, consequences. Serves that guy right for violatin' Unicity Town Ordinance 3.14!! He obviously has a still mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2014 10:25:01 GMT -5
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.. the phrase "what is" is another way of saying "truth", since by definition the truth is "what is". You assert that there is no truth, yet advocate acceptance of what is. Yeah, most of these posts are DWAD to me.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Apr 8, 2014 12:47:41 GMT -5
What's your definition of illusion? That which is not what it appears to be. Can one experience something as being an ilusion first hand or is "something is an illusion" always second hand knowledge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 13:06:07 GMT -5
That which is not what it appears to be. Can one experience something as being an ilusion first hand or is "something is an illusion" always second hand knowledge? Good question. Clearly illusion can be experienced directly but the knowledge that it is illusion is always after-the-fact or a belief-thought-label applied to experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 13:28:16 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.. As I hear it, there's no problem with an illusory nondualist eating illusory egg foo yung, pulling out their illusory credit card to pay the illusory cashier. If the illusory patron illusively tried to skedaddle from the illusory restaurant without paying the illusory tab with a "nondualist allibi" of "everything's an illusion, man, thanks for the chow, peace..." they would either end up illusively washing dishes or spending time in the illusory jail. Saying that this and that is an illusion doesn't mean that this and that can escape illusory consequences.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 8, 2014 15:18:24 GMT -5
Emptiness doesn't understand, there is nothing to understand about emptiness and to say that "emptiness must be seen" implies the presence of something perceived rather than an absence ... but an absence is not the presence of anything. Awareness implicates identity, and anything that is identified as "it", regardless if the one so aware includes themselves within "it", is a statement of identity that is bounded. Maybe in a text book but when I look, I see what I am and it is emptiness which I describe as aware and full of capacity. There is no question about it. Nothing is more clear to me. In your experience, would you say that there exists any kind of presence at all that is fundamentally other than or different from what you truely are? Do you experience what you truely are to have a beginning, ending or limit?
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Apr 8, 2014 16:01:49 GMT -5
Good question. Clearly illusion can be experienced directly but the knowledge that it is illusion is always after-the-fact or a belief-thought-label applied to experience. Can you explain, please? Well, at least it seems to be an highly abstract concept to me. Either you are still in the illusion and therfore there is no illusion or you saw through the illusion and there is no illusion either. Even in the moment of seeing through focus is on what is - no illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2014 17:28:02 GMT -5
That which is not what it appears to be. Can one experience something as being an ilusion first hand or is "something is an illusion" always second hand knowledge? Oh, sure, illusions are 'seen through': seen for what they are. Second hand knowledge of illusions is of no value. (Did I understand you correctly?)
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 17:49:58 GMT -5
Maybe in a text book but when I look, I see what I am and it is emptiness which I describe as aware and full of capacity. There is no question about it. Nothing is more clear to me. In your experience, would you say that there exists any kind of presence at all that is fundamentally other than or different from what you truely are? Do you experience what you truely are to have a beginning, ending or limit? No I do not see something other than what I am and it, which includes this has no beginning, ending or limitations. I am not imprisoned in this body/ mind but it is what it is...apparently uniquely tied to it and it's limitations. I can't tell you why or if there is a purpose. It simply seems to just be. It seems to all about being eternally being
|
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Apr 8, 2014 17:50:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2014 18:09:23 GMT -5
Hey alpha, are you anadi, the writer of the blog? Just curious because the subject and the quality of the writing alone is enough to spark interest in it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2014 19:47:59 GMT -5
I agree with what you say until the underlined. There is no contradiction because the act of realization doesn't imply a separate realizer. The one realizing is still the One to which oneness refers. It is, after all, Self realization. The appearance of multiplicity also doesn't imply the actuality of more than one 'element'. Your nightly dreams are filled with the illusion of multiple 'elements' and yet nothing is there. A mirage seems to imply water together with sand, and yet there is really only sand. It's in the nature of illusion to create such false appearances that lead one to false conclusions. There is no issue there to resolve.
|
|