|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 22:23:35 GMT -5
I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less. So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after. Seems you've fallen asleep and back into old sniping habits again. Which kinda proves my point that insights and conclusions are without real consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 22:24:42 GMT -5
I didn't say any of that. Your problem is that you see non-duality as some kind of metaphysics. Non-duality is not metaphysics. The real is not a context. You won't be able to cram it into a neat theory/philosophy. That's why non-duality can ever only be collection of pointers - nothing more, nothing less. Yes, I'm starting to see how he has been viewing nonduality as a kind of philosophy of life, like the Amish. Yeah, you can't be a billionaire and a non-dualist at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 22:26:25 GMT -5
Are you under the impression that nonduality means to offer a way to function in the world? No, that's my point. Non-duality doesn't seem to explain how we function in the world.Edit: Let me put it this way. I don't understand what the difference is in a mind previous to a non-dual realization and after non-dual realization. Right. It's absolutely useless to the practical mind.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 22:33:19 GMT -5
As layers of self dissolve one feels at the time that this is really who I am . Then another layer dissolves and one feels, no this is really who I am . This can go on and on for sometime until the realization happens .Only in mind can one distinguish the so called before and after effects of the realization and there is for sure a distinct taste ascertained that anything in mind is likened to an artificial sweetner compared to the taste of natural cane . So we have the mind and beyond, we have the artificial sweetner and the natural cane but the cane and the sweetner are only existing so one can tell the difference between their taste .. Some perhaps entertain what is real and what is illusionary within the same environment (being the mind) and some may perhaps just relate to the mind as being the dream platform so nothing of the mind is real and yet if one relates to what we are as being real then what we are that is of the mind is also real . Maybe one can only go by what one has been aware of in relation to self and take it from there, I can entertain that dreams can be real but it does depend on one's actual point of self reference in relation to the dream and in relation to a so called awakened self . Some even may conclude that this could go on forever and that there might be no end to it and so they just call off the self-inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 22:40:33 GMT -5
If something is not what it appears to be, then what it appears to be is not real.. you really do try to twist every discussion into the illusion that you are 'right'.. peeps are hearing you, and seeing through that illusion.. No, no, no.......E has walked up to this line several times, and then backed away. I think E has made a concession, although he says he hasn't. I've tried to explore lately the use of the word real. I've try to show the ordinary sense of the word, for example, when we get hit in the face with a 2x4. If it happened in a dream, no bloody nose. If it happens in >real< life, bloody nose. I've talked about history, 13.7 billion years back to the Big Bang, and then other historical people and events. E has always shot these down, all ~this~ is merely a non-dual dream. gopal also made similar points to E. Now at least he admits phenomena, that's something I can work with, how the world seems to operate. From your post: If something is not what it appears to be, the what it appears to be is not real. Previously, E has said (in effect), we can think we see a snake, but it turns out to be a rope, but in seeing the rope, it turns out to be a stick, but in seeing the stick, it turns out to be a shadow. And then we wake up and the shadow turns out to merely be a dream-shadow. At least now E agrees the rope is a phenomenon (for me, relatively real). I am surprised you (Tzu) don't see this is a concession on E's part.......(although he doesn't say it is). Flawed logic. In dream you get hit with a dream 2x4, so your dream body will get a bloody nose. But when you wake up, neither the 2x4 nor the bloody nose will be there anymore.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 22:55:17 GMT -5
All appearances are ultimately imagined, though some are collective imaginings. Imagination functions on multiple levels. That's a great imagining, but.. let's stay on topic, you say that illusion can be seen through with absolute certainty, but you offer no explanation to back that up.. and, the more you are asked, the more you spin illusions to avoid answering.. All you have to do is still your mind and look. Does that rez with you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 22:57:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure I see the difference between phenomena and appearance. Your glee at my 'conscession' is a bit worrisome. I'll say there are no external objects. If there are no external objects, then how can you stump your toe on the bedpost? .........IOW, it can't be both. It CAN be both. Have you ever felt an object in a dream? There are no external objects in dreams, so how is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 22:59:43 GMT -5
If what you want to say is the easy thing, then just say it. If you want to say something closer to WIBIGO, it may get more complex and frustrating. Non-dual dreaming seems the least complicated. I mean.....for example, one could climb Mt. Everest in a dream, without getting out of bed. To actually climb Mt. Everest, it takes months and months of planning, months and months of getting into shape, and weeks of actually climbing. In a dream you can do it all in one night. Then my explanation is easier after all. That's great!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 16, 2014 22:59:58 GMT -5
So...given that...you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality - passionately so - to sell something that can't be proven, when you could just go home, enjoy life, and very easily forget about all this and live happily ever after. Seems you've fallen asleep and back into old sniping habits again. Which kinda proves my point that insights and conclusions are without real consequences. I think it's one thing you don't understand about some other people's style....it is a sober, serious question I'm asking you, but since I don't hardly ever get a response that I don't consider that you're being snarky or evasive, I am simply trying to find a way in which to ask a straight question - but it appears that you will be in charge, no matter what. You will call me a sniper even when I'm trying to get some sort of response to my questions. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW YOU TAKE THINGS. THAT BALL IS IN YOUR COURT. IT'S NOT BAD OF ME TO ASK SOMEWHAT POINTED QUESTIONS - WHICH YOU DO ALL THE TIME.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 16, 2014 23:15:09 GMT -5
Seems you've fallen asleep and back into old sniping habits again. Which kinda proves my point that insights and conclusions are without real consequences. I think it's one thing you don't understand about some other people's style.... it is a sober, serious question I'm asking you, but since I don't hardly ever get a response that I don't consider that you're being snarky or evasive, I am simply trying to find a way in which to ask a straight question - but it appears that you will be in charge, no matter what. You will call me a sniper even when I'm trying to get some sort of response to my questions. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW YOU TAKE THINGS. THAT BALL IS IN YOUR COURT. IT'S NOT BAD OF ME TO ASK SOMEWHAT POINTED QUESTIONS - WHICH YOU DO ALL THE TIME. But you didn't ask any question. And I wouldn't consider "you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality" as 'sober and serious' either. Sorry, I think my nonsense threshold has been reached again. If you want a serious conversation, you have to drop the kiddie stuff and come with a clean slate.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2014 23:28:45 GMT -5
That's a great imagining, but.. let's stay on topic, you say that illusion can be seen through with absolute certainty, but you offer no explanation to back that up.. and, the more you are asked, the more you spin illusions to avoid answering.. E should just say that there is no explanation, one cannot demonstrate, to another, non-duality. period. That much I understand. It's a bit like playing chess with an old friend, and seeing six moves ahead. The game isn't that interesting anymore. E: There is no explanation. T: That's right, you have no explanation, just beliefs and illusions. Still your mind. E: I mean realization cannot be explained rationally. T: Your non-dual belief that realization is something special is what the nondual club tries to manipulate and mock others into believing. Still your mind and let go. E: Zackly, if mind is still, realization cannot be a movement of mind. T: Then 'realize' what the picture is above my desk. You can't. The still mind sees you abuse and attempt to control the beliefs others instead of allowing them to see the actuality for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2014 23:42:46 GMT -5
Emptiness doesn't mean that it won't hurt when you stub your toe. But the point is that according to E's "metaphysics", hitting your toe on a rock or a bedpost is not the cause of the pain. Toe, foot, leg, body, rock or bedpost mutually arise from non-dual-dreamer, unrelated to any history, any history. Much easier to just say that the mind-body-toe of "X", born on such-n-such date, now such-n-such years old, with such-n-such fingerprints, just wasn't paying attention on such-n-such date-time-place. Once there's the context of the event then obviously the physical pain is localized to one body. The metaphysics doesn't begin until the physics ends and a call for interpreting the physics is made. An interest in metaphysics can lead and bridge to an interest in a conscious nonceptual exploration, but discovering emptiness requires dropping the intellect altogether. PS: yes, you left the follow-up question unasked but gave the answer: what the toe stubber learns is the consequences of lax attention, but that's not what learning of the emptiness of phenomena refers to.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 16, 2014 23:43:53 GMT -5
I think it's one thing you don't understand about some other people's style.... it is a sober, serious question I'm asking you, but since I don't hardly ever get a response that I don't consider that you're being snarky or evasive, I am simply trying to find a way in which to ask a straight question - but it appears that you will be in charge, no matter what. You will call me a sniper even when I'm trying to get some sort of response to my questions. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW YOU TAKE THINGS. THAT BALL IS IN YOUR COURT. IT'S NOT BAD OF ME TO ASK SOMEWHAT POINTED QUESTIONS - WHICH YOU DO ALL THE TIME. But you didn't ask any question. And I wouldn't consider "you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality" as 'sober and serious' either. Sorry, I think my nonsense threshold has been reached again. If you want a serious conversation, you have to drop the kiddie stuff and come with a clean slate. I will most certainly give it a try: Why do you spend so much time here, doing whatever it is you're doing, which I say that because I honestly don't understand what it is you're doing -- but it seems as if you're trying to teach people about non-duality - is that correct? If that IS what you're doing or trying to do, then why use the 'gruff' method on everybody? You can't seem to change, either. I don't see anything any less childish about that than what you accuse me of acting childish for, to be honest. So, the next question that crossed my mind is, is it just to kill time? Incidentally, I've been around a LOT of people in my life, and I know that if I asked a question like I originally did, they would know I was asking a question. And if they had an honest bone in their body, they would respond.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 17, 2014 0:03:26 GMT -5
But you didn't ask any question. And I wouldn't consider "you are here on an internet forum proselytizing about non-duality" as 'sober and serious' either. Sorry, I think my nonsense threshold has been reached again. If you want a serious conversation, you have to drop the kiddie stuff and come with a clean slate. I will most certainly give it a try: Why do you spend so much time here, doing whatever it is you're doing, which I say that because I honestly don't understand what it is you're doing -- but it seems as if you're trying to teach people about non-duality - is that correct? If that IS what you're doing or trying to do, then why use the 'gruff' method on everybody? You can't seem to change, either. I don't see anything any less childish about that than what you accuse me of acting childish for, to be honest. So, the next question that crossed my mind is, is it just to kill time? Incidentally, I've been around a LOT of people in my life, and I know that if I asked a question like I originally did, they would know I was asking a question. And if they had an honest bone in their body, they would respond. It seems the story has already been written. Why even ask? You are operating under a flawed premise. Non-duality is not a philosophy and can therefore never be a teaching.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 17, 2014 0:08:17 GMT -5
I will most certainly give it a try: Why do you spend so much time here, doing whatever it is you're doing, which I say that because I honestly don't understand what it is you're doing -- but it seems as if you're trying to teach people about non-duality - is that correct? If that IS what you're doing or trying to do, then why use the 'gruff' method on everybody? You can't seem to change, either. I don't see anything any less childish about that than what you accuse me of acting childish for, to be honest. So, the next question that crossed my mind is, is it just to kill time? Incidentally, I've been around a LOT of people in my life, and I know that if I asked a question like I originally did, they would know I was asking a question. And if they had an honest bone in their body, they would respond. It seems the story has already been written. Why even ask? You are operating under a flawed premise. Non-duality is not a philosophy and can therefore never be a teaching. I know what I meant and I'm sure you know what you would've responded with, if you would/could only see that I ask in all innocence -- You won't respond in a way that would or could possibly reflect that I have an innocent curiosity. It seems no one can please you or certain other members of this forum with the precise and exacting verbiage, so you will put it at the doorstep of those who genuinely want to know but don't quite know how or if they wanna dance to your tune. I'm not operating under anything except my own innate curiosity and I'm done talking to you - I don't feel safe exchanging posts with you.
|
|