|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 12:29:25 GMT -5
isn't this description the very definition of pompous? Thanks for asking.. no, it isn't. It's interesting that a group of aligned believers feel empowered to point out the inconsistencies they see in others, and tell the others what is the 'right' way to believe, but.. when someone points out inconsistencies, and doesn't tell others the 'right' way to believe, trusting that letting go of beliefs and knowings is sufficient in itself to expose 'isness' and actuality, which is all that is needed.. when it is suggested that the absence of attachment to any belief or knowing, including oneness and nonduality, is liberation.. the attachment to beliefs about oneness/nonduality/pointing/beliefs compels the attached believer to react with accusatory illusions.. I've never told anybody the right way to believe, and consistently talk about nothing ultimately being true, greasy spot, absence, nothing to know. Is it okay for me to point out those inconsistencies in your beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 12:32:49 GMT -5
It's not possible to converse about something that has never happened to you. That's your way of dodging discussions that expose the contradictions in your beliefs.. you make claim that "It's not possible to converse", then follow that claim with your misrepresentation of actuality, you paint an illusion about me to distort the perceptions of others.. the problem is that you insist that those that have had the same experience also understand that experience in the same way you do.. rather than crusade an agenda of conformity to your beliefs, why not apply the understanding of the realization to the Life that is actually happening.. I have actually been where you are in the process of self-discovery, but i didn't get attached to it or trapped by it like some people.. I don't talk about my experiences. Why is it so hard for you to get that through your head?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 17, 2015 14:25:23 GMT -5
isn't this description the very definition of pompous? I don't know, it seems reasonable to point out contradictions (which is what I think inconsistencies are). As a correct inconsistency is an oxymoron logic has it that it's being used euphemistically in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2015 17:10:32 GMT -5
I don't know, it seems reasonable to point out contradictions (which is what I think inconsistencies are). As a correct inconsistency is an oxymoron logic has it that it's being used euphemistically in this instance. ->Insert no brainer Spock here<- Nobody here has been calling others wrong, though I'm willing to accept that disagreement implies as much. To say 'Oh, no, I'm not saying anybody's wrong, just inconsistent', is DWADling nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 17:44:40 GMT -5
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.. You're right, that's not the way I described it. A road sign with an arrow is not described as 'truth' either. It's sort of irrelevant. So does this mean that you agree with that understanding of what a pointer is? the 'pointer' nonduality, points to an agreed upon understanding of that word's usage, I suppose it depends on what you mean by understanding. Do you mean 'understanding' to involve some amount of concepts? If so, then no, that's not what I meant. But if you mean understanding to be similar to what you point to with still mind, then, yea, that might be it. an intention that the observer look where it's pointing and agree that nonduality is a good pointer.. No, that's definitely not what I meant. By the way, this last adjective you use -- 'good' -- is totally your thing. I've never said anything like that. 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..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2015 19:07:49 GMT -5
Supreme Ordering Intelligence. It's my short definition for God. So your SOI is the heavenly Father in Bible? There isn't a simple yes or no to that question. Some of the Bible is written from man's perspective, so some things are attributed to God which are not accurate. God is beyond man's possibility to comprehend. The Bible is written on at least four levels, from Origen and other writers, literal, topological (types, the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed), morally, allegorical. These he got from the Jewish mystical tradition which later came to be called The Kabbalah, these come from the word Pardes (from the story of four Rabbi's who went into Paradise, one died, one went insane, one became a heretic, and only Rabbi Akiva came back whole and unharmed). Peshat, plain, simple, direct; Remez, allegorical; Derash, metaphorical; Sod, the esoteric, hidden meaning. So God could be spoken of from any level, so a yes or no answer cannot be given. I take SOI to be God as Ayn Sof, Endlessness, transcendent, of whom it is said no man can see God and live, no man has seen God, only the begotten son..... Taking all that into consideration, yes, it's what Jesus points to by saying, my Father....... The word he used here is Abba (he was degrading God in the eyes of the Pharisees). It's the first sound a baby makes that could be taken as a word, like DaDa........
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 17, 2015 21:11:40 GMT -5
What is it that i don't understand about nonduality? Who have you written that to? To the person, popee, that replied to my post..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 17, 2015 21:13:34 GMT -5
What is it that i don't understand about nonduality? you could start with this... 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.. Well, that's what i understand.. my question regards what you think i don't understand..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 17, 2015 21:36:52 GMT -5
Thanks for asking.. no, it isn't. It's interesting that a group of aligned believers feel empowered to point out the inconsistencies they see in others, and tell the others what is the 'right' way to believe, but.. when someone points out inconsistencies, and doesn't tell others the 'right' way to believe, trusting that letting go of beliefs and knowings is sufficient in itself to expose 'isness' and actuality, which is all that is needed.. when it is suggested that the absence of attachment to any belief or knowing, including oneness and nonduality, is liberation.. the attachment to beliefs about oneness/nonduality/pointing/beliefs compels the attached believer to react with accusatory illusions.. I've never told anybody the right way to believe, and consistently talk about nothing ultimately being true, greasy spot, absence, nothing to know. Is it okay for me to point out those inconsistencies in your beliefs? If you say "oneness is truth" you've set-up the true/false~right/wrong model..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 17, 2015 21:41:14 GMT -5
That's your way of dodging discussions that expose the contradictions in your beliefs.. you make claim that "It's not possible to converse", then follow that claim with your misrepresentation of actuality, you paint an illusion about me to distort the perceptions of others.. the problem is that you insist that those that have had the same experience also understand that experience in the same way you do.. rather than crusade an agenda of conformity to your beliefs, why not apply the understanding of the realization to the Life that is actually happening.. I have actually been where you are in the process of self-discovery, but i didn't get attached to it or trapped by it like some people.. I don't talk about my experiences. Why is it so hard for you to get that through your head? That's all you can talk about, mostly 'your' beliefs about experiences.. if you could see through your beliefs then you could talk about what's actually happening, your interconnected experience with/as the happening..
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2015 22:23:07 GMT -5
I don't know, it seems reasonable to point out contradictions (which is what I think inconsistencies are). As a correct inconsistency is an oxymoron logic has it that it's being used euphemistically in this instance. If you refer to my ' point', that was used humourously. But the Tao is all oxymoronic, if I may point out it's contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 0:46:57 GMT -5
I've never told anybody the right way to believe, and consistently talk about nothing ultimately being true, greasy spot, absence, nothing to know. Is it okay for me to point out those inconsistencies in your beliefs? If you say "oneness is truth" you've set-up the true/false~right/wrong model.. Still your mind and let it go already.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 0:48:34 GMT -5
I don't talk about my experiences. Why is it so hard for you to get that through your head? That's all you can talk about, mostly 'your' beliefs about experiences.. if you could see through your beliefs then you could talk about what's actually happening, your interconnected experience with/as the happening.. Still your mind and let go of that belief.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 0:51:08 GMT -5
As a correct inconsistency is an oxymoron logic has it that it's being used euphemistically in this instance. If you refer to my ' point', that was used humourously. But the Tao is all oxymoronic, if I may point out it's contradictions. He's referring to Tzu's claim of the inconsistency of others, not to be confused with wrongness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 4:25:10 GMT -5
So your SOI is the heavenly Father in Bible? There isn't a simple yes or no to that question. Some of the Bible is written from man's perspective, so some things are attributed to God which are not accurate. God is beyond man's possibility to comprehend. The Bible is written on at least four levels, from Origen and other writers, literal, topological (types, the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed), morally, allegorical. These he got from the Jewish mystical tradition which later came to be called The Kabbalah, these come from the word Pardes (from the story of four Rabbi's who went into Paradise, one died, one went insane, one became a heretic, and only Rabbi Akiva came back whole and unharmed). Peshat, plain, simple, direct; Remez, allegorical; Derash, metaphorical; Sod, the esoteric, hidden meaning. So God could be spoken of from any level, so a yes or no answer cannot be given. I take SOI to be God as Ayn Sof, Endlessness, transcendent, of whom it is said no man can see God and live, no man has seen God, only the begotten son..... Taking all that into consideration, yes, it's what Jesus points to by saying, my Father....... The word he used here is Abba (he was degrading God in the eyes of the Pharisees). It's the first sound a baby makes that could be taken as a word, like DaDa........ Ok Thanks, Are you believing that Jesus was crucified and resurrected on third day and whomever believes this go to heaven?
|
|