Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:26:34 GMT -5
You misunderstood. No biggie. Ok, all right, My main motto was to make source to understand that tree doesn't exist in itself, source believes that tree exist in itself, I told him that you do not believe so, but he consider that you believe outer tree exist in itself. You cannot say the tree has no independent existence. You can only say you cannot prove the independent existence of the tree because it appears to you in your mind. If you say tree does not exist you are making an assumption. Is that not obvious from your real experience?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:31:49 GMT -5
Paradox is mental confusion. And dealing with mental confusion from a place of mental confusion will only lead to more mental confusion as you are exemplifying in nearly all of your 6,000 posts. If you see a paradox, you are not looking with still mind clarity. Simple. And "one for all, and all for one" is moralism and not oneness. If you would be actually looking with a still mind, you would see that. Obviously, you've never done that or else you wouldn't post such nonsense. Paradox is just two contexts which conflict when held up next to each other. The gateless gate, the pathless path....are paradoxical in that way. In the context of the individual there is a gate, and a path. In a broader context, there is no gate and no path. Both contexts are true but superficially we have a paradox In the context of the individual, there is no problem with talking about use/value. In the broader context, use/value does not apply. Both contexts are true, and there is no intrinsic problem with talking about either context. Not all paradox is the result of context conflict. For example, the liar's paradox.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 29, 2015 23:33:30 GMT -5
Rage isn't a step up, and depression is a mental illness, so see a psychologist in such cases. Not any more or less than rage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:35:53 GMT -5
You misunderstood. No biggie. Ok, all right, My main motto was to make source to understand that tree doesn't exist in itself, source believes that tree exist in itself, I told him that you do not believe so, but he consider that you believe outer tree exist in itself. No source doesn't believe that. Source says the tree exists because it borrows it's existence from Consciousness. The tree is perceived and is telling the senses there is an object there that exists, but it's actually lying. Only Consciousness exists. In other words Consciousness takes the name and shape, (namarupa), of a temporary finite form, labeled a tree. The tree is seen as existing in itself, but it is actually the invisible existence of Consciousness that is shining through the form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 23:43:41 GMT -5
Ok, all right, My main motto was to make source to understand that tree doesn't exist in itself, source believes that tree exist in itself, I told him that you do not believe so, but he consider that you believe outer tree exist in itself. No source doesn't believe that. Source says the tree exists because it borrows it's existence from Consciousness. The tree is perceived and is telling the senses there is an object there that exists, but it's actually lying. Only Consciousness exists. In other words Consciousness takes the name and shape, (namarupa), of a temporary finite form, labeled a tree. The tree is seen as existing in itself, but it is actually the invisible existence of Consciousness that is shining through the form. So in other words you and gopal agree. One of you needs to take a polygraph test, what with all this senses lying business.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:19:52 GMT -5
Well, since your are looking from a place of separation, I'm not surprised that that's all you can see, hehe. Maybe try taking off your separation goggles and actually look. I'm looking from a place that isn't blinded by ideologies.. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:29:07 GMT -5
There is an absence of cause of SR. Nothing happens to, relative to, within or because of "the absolute". Right, in the broadest context, there is an absence of cause of SR (and anything else for that matter), but this doesn't mean that there's an intrinsic problem with speaking of what might be useful or helpful. It's not a problem saying that self-enquiry might be useful. The moment we speak of S.R, it is a condition and is therefore subject to talks about conditions that pertain to it. The broadest context remains in place throughout. The moment we speak of SR, it is not SR. What we can speak of are concepts only. And concepts are conditional. Therefore, conditions pertain only to the SR concepts, but not SR itself.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:32:30 GMT -5
Nothing has separate existence because nothing is separate. Separation and wholeness happen simultaneously.. Oneness does not 'happen'. Oneness is the nature of being.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:35:03 GMT -5
Obviously you don't understand what 'absence of context' is pointing to, even with such an impressive spiritual resume under your belt. I'm very disappointed, Andrew. Obviously you don't understand what 'absence of context' is, either.. each word you speak/write comes from the context of 'you', your beliefs/understandings/speculations/etc.. So, according to you, perceiving can only happen within a context?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:35:44 GMT -5
We may have more folks with spiritual resumes nowadays, but I don't know if we have more self-realized folks. Probably even less. Are you self-realized? Such identity isn't entertained here.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:37:08 GMT -5
I had to laugh when I read this post from Steve. I don't mind being called an oldtimer, but I have yet to meet more than one or two youngtimers who have attained SR. Most millenials are just as stuck in duality (in the mind) as most boomers and beyond. Ha ha Who carries the stick?.. and, who is struck with its judgments? You are obviously stuck in the belief that what happened to you when you fell into the river is what we call SR. Not so!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 0:44:56 GMT -5
hypermind much? One "in identity" is in no position to point away from it and this "I thought" is not "in identity", it's just a specific pattern: self-reference. The body/mind is wired for self-reference, and it arises one way in the absence of identity, and another way "in identity". Sure you have, here: That noone ever writes anything is a pointer, and here you've taken the finger for the Moon. ==== It is possible to " suck it up and see for yourself" that this sense is only apparently limited within the confines of mind, but don't take my word for it. I have said self not identity and said it in such a way where the non identity is beyond mind . The non identity in that respect is not an identity . Depends on if one is of the mind . If one is of the mind and relates self to no self then sure, the no self or the non identity is just another self reference . But you also wrote essentially, no mind, no awareness, and that's where our opinions diverge, and no debate will ever settle that matter as I'm not referring to something that's intellectually defensible. It's just as possible for a peep to harbor an identity based on the idea of the absence of identity as it is for them to harbor an identity based on the idea of the monism of Self. The thought that I exist is an identity in it's self . 'I' is an identity of sorts ... Not in my opinion, no. One more lap in the warren. Here's my TMT tornado in reply: That these words are being rendered by the mind in the moment, that this sentence is being read, is a self evident fact that is referred to by one of many different possible pointers. Peeps conditioning leads them to prefer one and the word lawyers can hash out which one is the best: existence, being, self, consciousness, awareness, this ... etc. In this moment, in the reading of the sentence, you are, and this "areness" is referred to indirectly -- that is, it's pointed to -- by any of those words, but none of them explain or define WHAT you are -- that is what is an identity is, that definition. The "I thought" is just an artifact of the "areness" + the fact of perspective, not a definition of what that "areness" is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 0:52:02 GMT -5
What's "Hate"?? It's the new word we've settled on to replace 'Love' in Figandrew discussions. Right. Got it. Uh ... they can keep it, 'k?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 0:55:28 GMT -5
Today's emoticon comment: It seems the frog ate the cigarette smoking small thing (if I remember rightly) that was there before!! It was a bit dangerous (made me remember the good old days of smoking) but I will keep the memory.. (but frog is nice, too! ) Very observant of you, yes. Frogs don't like ciggy smoke so they tend to fan it back to it's source.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 0:57:03 GMT -5
Right, in the broadest context, there is an absence of cause of SR (and anything else for that matter), but this doesn't mean that there's an intrinsic problem with speaking of what might be useful or helpful. It's not a problem saying that self-enquiry might be useful. That you keep repetitively stating that as if there's some disagreement with it creates the illusion (the strawman) of that disagreement and the repetition is a process of propaganda. The moment we speak of S.R, it is a condition and is therefore subject to talks about conditions that pertain to it. The broadest context remains in place throughout. We simply differ in opinion here: in my opinion to state that "SR is a condition" is a misconception resulting from contextual confusion best illustrated by the fact that noone ever gets enlightened. Precisely. No-brainer. To see that, however, Andrew would have to let go of his healer agenda.
|
|