|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 8, 2014 21:03:32 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. No 'what is' is not "another way of saying "truth", 'truth' constricts and confines "what is" to the speaker's or believer's ideology(s).. 'is' is an ongoing happening, not reducible to a person's conceptual ideas about 'truth'.. The sky is ________.. blue, stormy, dark, moon-lit, etc... we can all agree that the sky 'is'.. The tree is ______________.. tall, gnarled, bent, strong, green, etc... we can all agree that the tree 'is'.. The river is ______________.. muddy, fast, wide, deep, clear, slow, etc... we can all agree the river 'is'.. "Is" isn't finished, it's a happening in progress.. the experiencer of 'true' sets conditions, true/false, where that which isn't in agreement with 'true', becomes 'false'.. the experiencer of 'is' reserves judgment and keeps paying attention to what 'is' happening, unconditionally alert and cgrious..
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 21:08:38 GMT -5
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. No 'what is' is not "another way of saying "truth", 'truth' constricts and confines "what is" to the speaker's or believer's ideology(s).. 'is' is an ongoing happening, not reducible to a person's conceptual ideas about 'truth'.. The sky is ________.. blue, stormy, dark, moon-lit, etc... we can all agree that the sky 'is'.. The tree is ______________.. tall, gnarled, bent, strong, green, etc... we can all agree that the tree 'is'.. The river is ______________.. muddy, fast, wide, deep, clear, slow, etc... we can all agree the river 'is'.. "Is" isn't finished, it's a happening in progress.. the experiencer of 'true' sets conditions, true/false, where that which isn't in agreement with 'true', becomes 'false'.. the experiencer of 'is' reserves judgment and keeps paying attention to what 'is' happening, unconditionally alert and cgrious.. I agree because what is makes no sense whatsoever...unless I find myself needing for it to make sense. Personally that part of it is disappointing at times.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 8, 2014 21:19:26 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. You have a difficult time reconciling the difference between dreams and reality, don't you? between your imaginings and reality, between what's mind-paly and what's actual.. Reality progresses as a continuity of interconnected happening, present and continuing to happen after dreams and imaginings pass..
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 8, 2014 21:23:35 GMT -5
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 How would it make you feel if you were to fully acknowledge and accept the fact that eventually, ALL evidence (including any memory) of that particular body/mind organism who you are apparently unexplainably tied and limited to right now ever having been manifested will dissolve so perfectly and completely that it will LITERALLY be as though it NEVER was? Just askin..
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Apr 8, 2014 21:32:14 GMT -5
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 How would it make you feel if you were to fully acknowledge and accept the fact that eventually, that particular body/mind whos limitations you are unexplainably apparently tied to right now will be forgotten so perfectly and completely that it will LITERALLY be as though it NEVER was? Just askin.. All I know is that what I am, aware empty space, was never born and I can never die. The body will die, not me. What I have done lives on forever as part of the whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 21:37:34 GMT -5
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. No 'what is' is not "another way of saying "truth", 'truth' constricts and confines "what is" to the speaker's or believer's ideology(s).. 'is' is an ongoing happening, not reducible to a person's conceptual ideas about 'truth'.. The sky is ________.. blue, stormy, dark, moon-lit, etc... we can all agree that the sky 'is'.. The tree is ______________.. tall, gnarled, bent, strong, green, etc... we can all agree that the tree 'is'.. The river is ______________.. muddy, fast, wide, deep, clear, slow, etc... we can all agree the river 'is'.. "Is" isn't finished, it's a happening in progress.. the experiencer of 'true' sets conditions, true/false, where that which isn't in agreement with 'true', becomes 'false'.. the experiencer of 'is' reserves judgment and keeps paying attention to what 'is' happening, unconditionally alert and cgrious.. If the sky "is", and I say it is, then I am speaking the truth.I believe you are saying that phenomenon cannot be confind to conceptual structures, which I would agree with. You also are against dogmatic assertions, which is respectable. But what you are unwilling to entertain is that there may in fact be an ontological verity corresponding with non-dualistic philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 8, 2014 22:44:36 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. You have a difficult time reconciling the difference between dreams and reality, don't you? between your imaginings and reality, between what's mind-paly and what's actual.. Reality progresses as a continuity of interconnected happening, present and continuing to happen after dreams and imaginings pass.. What are you even talking about? Read my post and respond to what I wrote if you want to.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 9, 2014 2:25:36 GMT -5
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. No 'what is' is not "another way of saying "truth", 'truth' constricts and confines "what is" to the speaker's or believer's ideology(s).. 'is' is an ongoing happening, not reducible to a person's conceptual ideas about 'truth'.. The sky is ________.. blue, stormy, dark, moon-lit, etc... we can all agree that the sky 'is'.. The tree is ______________.. tall, gnarled, bent, strong, green, etc... we can all agree that the tree 'is'.. The river is ______________.. muddy, fast, wide, deep, clear, slow, etc... we can all agree the river 'is'.. "Is" isn't finished, it's a happening in progress.. the experiencer of 'true' sets conditions, true/false, where that which isn't in agreement with 'true', becomes 'false'.. the experiencer of 'is' reserves judgment and keeps paying attention to what 'is' happening, unconditionally alert and cgrious.. Do you exist?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:12:38 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. I'd say most who attack it like Figandrew and Tzu and others don't have a clue what non-duality is actually about. So what they call non-duality I wouldn't call non-duality but rather misconceptions of non-duality. And that's what they attack. They attack their own misconceptions. They fight their own figments of imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:23:18 GMT -5
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. That sounds like an arbitrary and meaningless distinction.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:28:19 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.. First off, there is no club. That's only in your mind. Secondly, my invitation to an open honest sincere discussion still stands. Care to explain why you are not interested despite your propaganda?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:39:53 GMT -5
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. It's actually the other way round if you should happen to look with a still mind that really deserves to be called 'still'. Seeing separate volitional persons involves and act of imagination, seeing oneness does not. Here's an invitation for you as well.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:45:59 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.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:49:27 GMT -5
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. Right. Seems Tzu doesn't understand what is meant with 'illusion' in non-duality. Which means Tzu doesn't actually understand non-duality.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 9, 2014 3:52:41 GMT -5
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 Then you are just minding. It should be clear that the question about purpose is misconceived and therefore shouldn't even arise. No need for speculation.
|
|