|
Post by laughter on Jan 16, 2015 7:36:29 GMT -5
If someone doesn't see a value in quiescent mind I understand that, and mean no disrespect to the process of conceptual exploration or the conceptual structures that are the basis of it. That said I see value in this other sub-process of collapsing the structures within that overall process of exploration. The greatest strengths are the greatest weaknesses of any artifact. This forum is strong because it's disorganized, but that tends toward a concentration of interest in only a few threads at a time. Intellectually based debate is always going to be relatively noisy. Perhaps a subtle point is that the noise level of a dialog isn't necessarily indicative of the interest of the readers. I figure the pursuit of the perfect model can't possibly be reflecting an interest in liberation from suffering, so there's at least a portion of the membership that has no interest in that possibility. Others are interested but don't seem to have much to say. I think all of us trouble makers would be eager to discuss the seeing through of illusions and the subtlety of absence and the Peace that passes understanding, and the like, without modeling it and intellectualizing it and quoting from the Bible. It may be a matter of rejecting and ignoring the insincerity. Seems to me that the only reason to engage the appearance of insincerity is to confirm the appearance, and once that's done, any further engagement is just amplifying it. That's a specific relevant to my general mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 16, 2015 8:00:59 GMT -5
The first question is misconceived on the notion of an "experience of nonduality". "not two" is a pointer. The "collective interests" referenced by the religion names are expressible as individuated descriptions of experience. Unlike describing a cup of coffee, they involve various sets of abstractions, but the experiences of the religions themselves are, as is any experience, each uniquely individual. Nonduality points away from all such abstractions. Nonduality is not speculation. Do you dismiss and discount those variagated experiences of the religions or can you verify, them and if so, how? A 'pointer' is a description of an experience that you think you had, and that you want other people to have, too.. Nonduality is that experiencer's understanding of their existence, and it is an identification with the 'pointing game'.. the pointing game is where someone describes what they want someone else to believe, and when challenged on the inherent bias of the description, 'pointing' is invoked as if intentional bias were not intended to influence a result. Nonduality is not speculation, it's the evidence of an incomplete understanding that is believed to be true, limiting the openness that would reveal a more complete understanding.. No, a pointer is not a description of an experience, and as there's no agreement on that point, there's no common ground for the dialog about pointers or pointing. Specifically where we differ is that you're describing is a conceptual model of existence, and that has nothing to do with what is meant by pointing. A pointer is an idea that cannot convey what it is indirectly referring to because the referent is not conveyable by an idea. A model of existence, on the other hand, assumes that existence is subject to modeling. The idea of a model of existence is in direct opposition to the definition of a pointer. You're playing word-games on the religion thingy, 'general curiosity' forms collective interests and religious diversity is a prime example of that.. These are all your ideas and beliefs about the experience of others. Let that go, and what is actually happening is revealed to mind that is still. Now, I can relate what that happening seems like to me, and to me it seems that people can arrive at consensus on various ideas, but that their experiences are uniquely theirs. Your idea of a "collective interest" makes an assumption about consensus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 10:23:23 GMT -5
God is not a Him, not a being. A god who is interested in anything is a personal God. Personal God does not mean a God who takes a personal interest in you, it is a God who thinks and desires and plans and gets interested like a person does. There is no God, there are no levels, no hell below us, above us only sky. The result of 25+ years of seeking has you hopelessly, irretrievably lost in mind. E, I understand that this originating consciousness, whatever it is, for you, is unconscious. Don't you see a tiny contradiction here? I don't see how something can be both unconscious, and intelligent (that is, an originating intelligence). You cannot possibly know anything about this originating (un)consciousness. So you can't make any statements about what it really is. Therefore, you, E, are speaking from a model, your model. You can deny you have a model all you wish, but anybody can see you are operating from an (unconscious) model. Tzu points this out constantly, it's easily seen. So, your first task is to see that some statements you make must necessarily come from a model (making the unconscious, conscious). I agree that God is not a him, that's just a manner of speaking. As for being, God (SOI) is Being. Without a ground of being, you could not be. (Even as an imaginary being, especially as an imaginary being). Why not just say: I don't know? I freely admit that I am operating from a model. What is the meaning of SOI in the border line?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 13:13:23 GMT -5
Not so much....really. It is my understanding that to 'point' to an idea like nonduality AND to describe that idea as if it were superior to any other idea, is the person pointing's attempt to influence the observer's understanding to agree with the person pointing's understanding.. in other words, the person pointing at their own understanding rather than pointing at the clarity that offers others their own understanding robs the others of an unbiased direct experience.. it may be an unconscious need to manipulate agreement, not trusting the experience itself to reveal what is actually happening.. What is pointed to is neither an experience nor a conceptual understanding. It's more subtle than that, which is why it's called a pointer rather than a description or a model. What the pointer points toward is whatcha call a realization.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 13:28:03 GMT -5
Only when they are wrong, in which case what they are saying is not WIBIGO. What's so hard to understand about that? The peace that passes understanding is not the peace that you understand it to be. Surely you can understand that. You divide into right/wrong and conflict follows.. just let go of what isn't actually working, let go of what is not consistent with existing as a holistic organic process.. your judgment of others as wrong presumes your understanding of what is right, and those are subjective values that result in conflict, in thread after thread of you insisting that your understanding is right, and disagreement is wrong.. let the experience itself reveal its actuality, trust that clarity informs that experiencer's understanding and the result is consistent with that which 'is'.. It's disingenuous to argue for the wrongness of others for years, and then call it wrong to say others are wrong and I'm right. Every post in every contentious discussion here makes that implied claim. If you were actually so gentle as to say 'I see it differently, but your view is equally true', then I would take a different approach in this response, but that's not how you operate. If you did, I would probly say you are caught up in some new age idea that every view is equally valid, then sing a bar of Kumbaya. Some ideas are seriously problematic. Illusions and self delusions are not conducive to freedom and Peace, and discussing what is illusion and what is not has potential value. Making everybody right, not that you even remotely have that in mind, has no potential beyond making friends and playing the smile game.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 13:29:13 GMT -5
I understand that you don't see it that way, but in posting at ST, you are requesting observation and understanding of your ideas.. In that case, your request is denied.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2015 13:38:42 GMT -5
I figure the pursuit of the perfect model can't possibly be reflecting an interest in liberation from suffering, so there's at least a portion of the membership that has no interest in that possibility. Others are interested but don't seem to have much to say. I think all of us trouble makers would be eager to discuss the seeing through of illusions and the subtlety of absence and the Peace that passes understanding, and the like, without modeling it and intellectualizing it and quoting from the Bible. It may be a matter of rejecting and ignoring the insincerity. Seems to me that the only reason to engage the appearance of insincerity is to confirm the appearance, and once that's done, any further engagement is just amplifying it. That's a specific relevant to my general mea culpa. I spose it's mine too. I presume the potential for others to benefit from that engagement, but perhaps not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 14:06:51 GMT -5
Not so much....really. It is my understanding that to 'point' to an idea like nonduality AND to describe that idea as if it were superior to any other idea, is the person pointing's attempt to influence the observer's understanding to agree with the person pointing's understanding.. in other words, the person pointing at their own understanding rather than pointing at the clarity that offers others their own understanding robs the others of an unbiased direct experience.. it may be an unconscious need to manipulate agreement, not trusting the experience itself to reveal what is actually happening.. 2¢ IMO, when folks use the term 'pointer' they are using a different understanding than what you say in the bolded. IOW, a pointer is different than a definition. The definition of nonduality could be 'not-two' or not duality. The definition is in the dictionary. The pointer 'nonduality' is more like a trigger like a street sign is a trigger. The purpose is to have you look in a different direction. You see the sign (I'm thinking of an arrow sign right now) and then look where the arrow is pointing. Similarly, you read the word(s) that make up the pointer, you understand the meaning of those terms in the same way you can look those terms up in the dictionary, and then you get the message and look elsewhere. In the same way, the terms 'be still' or 'still mind' isn't supposed to point (in your usage) to the idea of being still or the idea of 'still mind,' rather it is just a nudge for one to settle, quit chasing thoughts around and round, tune in to what's happening (minus thinking). The pointer nonduality can not be understood unless duality is understood. Experientally, this plus not-this equals two. The fact of differentiation, contrast. But even more deeply, this plus experience = two. And then 'what is This?' appears. At that moment the pointer 'be still' or 'still mind' aTA-MT can really open things up (because the boundaries that define things disappear).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 16, 2015 15:06:30 GMT -5
It is my understanding that to 'point' to an idea like nonduality AND to describe that idea as if it were superior to any other idea, is the person pointing's attempt to influence the observer's understanding to agree with the person pointing's understanding.. in other words, the person pointing at their own understanding rather than pointing at the clarity that offers others their own understanding robs the others of an unbiased direct experience.. it may be an unconscious need to manipulate agreement, not trusting the experience itself to reveal what is actually happening.. 2¢ IMO, when folks use the term 'pointer' they are using a different understanding than what you say in the bolded. IOW, a pointer is different than a definition. The definition of nonduality could be 'not-two' or not duality. The definition is in the dictionary. The pointer 'nonduality' is more like a trigger like a street sign is a trigger. The purpose is to have you look in a different direction. You see the sign (I'm thinking of an arrow sign right now) and then look where the arrow is pointing. Similarly, you read the word(s) that make up the pointer, you understand the meaning of those terms in the same way you can look those terms up in the dictionary, and then you get the message and look elsewhere. In the same way, the terms 'be still' or 'still mind' isn't supposed to point (in your usage) to the idea of being still or the idea of 'still mind,' rather it is just a nudge for one to settle, quit chasing thoughts around and round, tune in to what's happening (minus thinking). The pointer nonduality can not be understood unless duality is understood. Experientally, this plus not-this equals two. The fact of differentiation, contrast. But even more deeply, this plus experience = two. And then 'what is This?' appears. At that moment the pointer 'be still' or 'still mind' aTA-MT can really open things up (because the boundaries that define things disappear). Correct. The words "nonduality" or "nonconceptual seeing" are not pointing to ideas; they are pointing to what is perceived when the mind is still, and there are no words for THAT. It's like going to a dance with a single-shot camera; no matter how many pictures one takes of people dancing, what the dance IS cannot be captured by individual photographs. Dancing, as a dynamic activity, can be seen, but no static image of it will capture the action. The truth is like a dance, and no idea ABOUT it can capture the action.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2015 19:05:46 GMT -5
E, I understand that this originating consciousness, whatever it is, for you, is unconscious. Don't you see a tiny contradiction here? I don't see how something can be both unconscious, and intelligent (that is, an originating intelligence). You cannot possibly know anything about this originating (un)consciousness. So you can't make any statements about what it really is. Therefore, you, E, are speaking from a model, your model. You can deny you have a model all you wish, but anybody can see you are operating from an (unconscious) model. Tzu points this out constantly, it's easily seen. So, your first task is to see that some statements you make must necessarily come from a model (making the unconscious, conscious). I agree that God is not a him, that's just a manner of speaking. As for being, God (SOI) is Being. Without a ground of being, you could not be. (Even as an imaginary being, especially as an imaginary being). Why not just say: I don't know? I freely admit that I am operating from a model. What is the meaning of SOI in the border line? Supreme Ordering Intelligence. It's my short definition for God.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 16, 2015 20:50:35 GMT -5
I think the pointing is an egotistic apparition that stems from the desire to be a guru figure.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 16, 2015 22:13:13 GMT -5
It is my understanding that to 'point' to an idea like nonduality AND to describe that idea as if it were superior to any other idea, is the person pointing's attempt to influence the observer's understanding to agree with the person pointing's understanding.. in other words, the person pointing at their own understanding rather than pointing at the clarity that offers others their own understanding robs the others of an unbiased direct experience.. it may be an unconscious need to manipulate agreement, not trusting the experience itself to reveal what is actually happening.. What is pointed to is neither an experience nor a conceptual understanding. It's more subtle than that, which is why it's called a pointer rather than a description or a model. What the pointer points toward is whatcha call a realization. What the pointer points to is what that experiencer has understood about the experiences they've had.. 'realization' is what you understand about some of the experiences you've been almost present for.. if you had been fully present, you would have realized that realization is just a conceptual model you prefer.. it's called a 'pointer' to create the illusion that it shouldn't be scrutinized along with other ideas..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 16, 2015 22:19:33 GMT -5
You divide into right/wrong and conflict follows.. just let go of what isn't actually working, let go of what is not consistent with existing as a holistic organic process.. your judgment of others as wrong presumes your understanding of what is right, and those are subjective values that result in conflict, in thread after thread of you insisting that your understanding is right, and disagreement is wrong.. let the experience itself reveal its actuality, trust that clarity informs that experiencer's understanding and the result is consistent with that which 'is'.. It's disingenuous to argue for the wrongness of others for years, and then call it wrong to say others are wrong and I'm right. Every post in every contentious discussion here makes that implied claim. If you were actually so gentle as to say 'I see it differently, but your view is equally true', then I would take a different approach in this response, but that's not how you operate. If you did, I would probly say you are caught up in some new age idea that every view is equally valid, then sing a bar of Kumbaya. Some ideas are seriously problematic. Illusions and self delusions are not conducive to freedom and Peace, and discussing what is illusion and what is not has potential value. Making everybody right, not that you even remotely have that in mind, has no potential beyond making friends and playing the smile game. I don't argue for the wrongness of others, i point out inconsistencies, others 'feel' wrong due to the realization that their understanding is inconsistent, and they try to blame the messenger..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 16, 2015 22:40:51 GMT -5
It is my understanding that to 'point' to an idea like nonduality AND to describe that idea as if it were superior to any other idea, is the person pointing's attempt to influence the observer's understanding to agree with the person pointing's understanding.. in other words, the person pointing at their own understanding rather than pointing at the clarity that offers others their own understanding robs the others of an unbiased direct experience.. it may be an unconscious need to manipulate agreement, not trusting the experience itself to reveal what is actually happening.. 2¢ IMO, when folks use the term 'pointer' they are using a different understanding than what you say in the bolded. IOW, a pointer is different than a definition. The definition of nonduality could be 'not-two' or not duality. The definition is in the dictionary. The pointer 'nonduality' is more like a trigger like a street sign is a trigger. The purpose is to have you look in a different direction. You see the sign (I'm thinking of an arrow sign right now) and then look where the arrow is pointing. Similarly, you read the word(s) that make up the pointer, you understand the meaning of those terms in the same way you can look those terms up in the dictionary, and then you get the message and look elsewhere. In the same way, the terms 'be still' or 'still mind' isn't supposed to point (in your usage) to the idea of being still or the idea of 'still mind,' rather it is just a nudge for one to settle, quit chasing thoughts around and round, tune in to what's happening (minus thinking). The pointer nonduality can not be understood unless duality is understood. Experientally, this plus not-this equals two. The fact of differentiation, contrast. But even more deeply, this plus experience = two. And then 'what is This?' appears. At that moment the pointer 'be still' or 'still mind' aTA-MT can really open things up (because the boundaries that define things disappear). When the message is described as 'truth', that's not a pointer the way you describe it, that's a limitation.. the 'pointer' nonduality, points to an agreed upon understanding of that word's usage, an intention that the observer look where it's pointing and agree that nonduality is a good pointer.. You cannot lead someone to their own authentic direct experience when you are describing your interpretation of that experience.. if the experiencer is describing the experience, rather than how to find the clarity to actually see the experience for what it is, the observer's illusion is that the menu is the meal.. the observer is being kept out of the kitchen..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 23:57:52 GMT -5
What is the meaning of SOI in the border line? Supreme Ordering Intelligence. It's my short definition for God. So your SOI is the heavenly Father in Bible?
|
|