|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:01:49 GMT -5
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. 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. It's not a strawman, Reefs has stated it very explicitly. I've also given him plenty of opportunities to tell me that it's not a problem to say that something might be useful. Regardless of whether there is ever 'one' that gets enlightened, the moment we talk about S.R/enlightenment we are talking about it as something that isn't universally applicable in individual/experiential terms. Being/Truth/Self are universally applicable because they don't apply to the individual or to experience. When we say 'no-one ever gets enlightened' we are saying it with the awareness that that has been realized by some and not others, that enlightenment applies to some and not others. If you think that you are NOT speaking of S.R/enlightenment as a condition, I would say you are kidding yourself. The moment we talk about SR, it's not SR, it's just a concept of SR. Which means all your useful/value conclusions only apply to the concept of SR, but not SR itself. Why is that so hard to grasp? Is it really that dark in your conceptual box that you can't even see the most fundamental no-brainers anymore?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 1:05:42 GMT -5
Seems to me that the hypothetical person on this trajectory would have to be open, curious, sincere and humble to even get to the point of the conceptual understanding, as they'd have to admit to themselves that they only grasped a metaphor. Hypothetical? It was all unconscious for me ... well, I guess it is for any seeker dealing exclusively in concepts, right? On top of that the concepts I chased had nothing to do with this stuff -- at least, directly. So I can only speculate and I haven't made the studies that Bob has or observed seekers first hand like he has. I can remember back but that's an inherently flawed process.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:07:08 GMT -5
It's not a strawman, Reefs has stated it very explicitly. I've also given him plenty of opportunities to tell me that it's not a problem to say that something might be useful. Link or giraffe. Anything you put up will be very clearly in the context of the cause of SR. Regardless of whether there is ever 'one' that gets enlightened, the moment we talk about S.R/enlightenment we are talking about it as something that isn't universally applicable in individual/experiential terms. Being/Truth/Self are universally applicable because they don't apply to the individual or to experience. When we say 'no-one ever gets enlightened' we are saying it with the awareness that that has been realized by some and not others, that enlightenment applies to some and not others. If you think that you are NOT speaking of S.R/enlightenment as a condition, I would say you are kidding yourself. The appearance of the enlightened individual does not translate into a laundry list of conditions that define "enlightenment" and the simple fact that every individual is unique is enough in and of itself to demonstrate the fallacy. Andrew just proves that he can't see beyond conditions and concepts. That's all. Non of that has anything to do with SR. His mental stunts are meaningless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 1:07:38 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. oh man, we both are having complete agreement, I don't why the hell we both had been arguing about this because this is the concept i was about to tell you, that's the reason I asked where is the tree found? where is the tree found? many times.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 1:10:00 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. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 1:13:49 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. 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? You believe perceiver to whom everything appears, I believe perception is holding the perceiver, Perceiver and perceived are a single unit. So outer world can't exist. Getting me?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:26:07 GMT -5
No, anything I put up would be in the context of SR, not the context of the cause of SR. There's a difference. You're just repeating the fallacy of the strawman. It's pure propaganda. The appearance of the enlightened individual tells you that enlightenment is a condition. Simple as. And yes, there are a set of conditions that define 'enlightenment', basically stated as 'the absence of a particular set of illusions'. That absence isn't the presence of a set of conditions. This is where there's simply an honest difference of opinion between us and that's what I was explaining to you 200 pages ago about how what you conceive of as "Self-Realization" and what I conceive of as "Self-Realization" are two different things. If you're not attached to your idea of SR then you'll just accept the difference of opinion and move on. Andrew thinks it's an apples and oranges problem. It's not. It's not even about fruits.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 1:26:30 GMT -5
It's not meant to be funny. It's better than suggesting that women can't see a bar in front of them though. Well, but it's a joke.....on a joke site. I think it's meant to be funny. Tragicomedy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 1:27:47 GMT -5
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? You believe perceiver to whom everything appears, I believe perception is holding the perceiver, Perceiver and perceived are a single unit. So outer world can't exist. Getting me? Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a mental concept.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:28:00 GMT -5
You're repeating a subjective perception that you refuse to substantiate. It's of the form "Reefs wrote ____", so if Reefs actually wrote that you either would substantiate it if you could or are literally refusing to face facts. So you see, this "correction" that you imagine that you've offered is just another giraffe. To you it seems that way, yes. And the attempt to stitch together some sort of extrapolated composite of the enlightened person based on these characteristics is the construction of a mind-made Frankenstein. Sure you can, and whether you understand me or not has nothing to do with that acceptance. Accepting a difference of opinion is as easy as recognizing the fact that there will always be someone who doesn't agree with you. Neither of those ideas have any relation in the slightest to anything I've written except in your imagination. Of course there are commonalities between the appearances of individuals that are realized. I haven't suggested otherwise. I'm talking about looking at the commonalities of the conditioning, not so much the characteristics of the individual. These commonalities of conditioning can be seen in every teaching they offer. Again, the point being that S.R/enlightenment is a condition. I'll come back with a quote, but what is as illustrative as any quote, is Reefs unwillingness to state that something might be of value (or hindrance) in the context of S.R (whether it's sincerity or clear seeing or something else). The whole matter could easily be put to rest if he was willing to state one example, but that hasn't been given. You want to keep talking about apples and oranges. I say, it's not about fruits at all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 1:29:30 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about there being a world without women or that it would be loveless, did I? Boredom is lovelessness. You may not have meant to, but yeah, ya did. linkyCounsel for the defense waives the procedural dispute, stipulates the alleged "fact" and offers the following argument on the merits in opposition: As Love is the actual absence of separation between yin and yang the hypothetical deficit of one or the other principal forecloses it's possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:31:26 GMT -5
dwad repetition of the difference of opinion propaganda lol even if it was a dwad, the point remains that when we speak of enlightenment/SR, we are speaking of a condition. I looked through some quotes, that's twenty minutes I won't see again. In regard to my core argument that talking about use/value does have it's place in talks about SR....Reefs has said... ''What I am actually saying is that the question about the usefulness of paths shouldn't even arise. It's a strawman discussion.'' ''For the very last time: the useful/helpful context does not apply to SR.'' ''For about 200 pages now, I am telling you that the 'useful/not useful' context does not apply.'' This is wrong. The useful/helpful context DOES apply to SR, it's just not the broadest context.
Now I could also go specifically into the compartmentalization issue but I will leave it there. The compartmentalization is all yours as long as you treat SR and the concept of SR in the exact same way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 30, 2015 1:32:05 GMT -5
You're just repeating the fallacy of the strawman. It's pure propaganda. That absence isn't the presence of a set of conditions. This is where there's simply an honest difference of opinion between us and that's what I was explaining to you 200 pages ago about how what you conceive of as "Self-Realization" and what I conceive of as "Self-Realization" are two different things. If you're not attached to your idea of SR then you'll just accept the difference of opinion and move on. Andrew thinks it's an apples and oranges problem. It's not. It's not even about fruits. No it's about nuts. Little green. Nuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 1:33:49 GMT -5
You believe perceiver to whom everything appears, I believe perception is holding the perceiver, Perceiver and perceived are a single unit. So outer world can't exist. Getting me? Belief has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a mental concept. Yes correct, what you are thinking about the object and perceiver is just belief. When you see the moon, you are moon, that's the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 30, 2015 1:35:28 GMT -5
The context of each of those statements is that the practices aren't useful for causing SR. He's tried -- repeatedly -- to explain to you the difference between the context of the individual and conditioning and the fact that there is no "context of SR", but instead of engaging with that, you keep on repeating the same deliberate twisting and confusion of context. If you'd actually posted links instead of cutting and pasting quotes that would be very clear, but it's obvious to anyone who wants to read the thread without bias. You've convinced yourself that you're right over what is, by the best benefit of the doubt, a difference of opinion. That's a sort of tautology, so to put it on endless repeat is completely insane. As you've written yourself that you can't accept that difference of opinion: ... we all know where the insanity is comin' from. Reefs is specifically saying that the useful/helpful context does not apply to SR. This is wrong. The useful/helpful context does apply (as a smaller context), and this is the context of cause/effect. We CAN talk about stuff that happens as being a cause of SR, again, with the broader context in place. Reefs is ONLY willing to say that practices are useful 'in the relative realm', and here is where we get deep into the problem of compartmentalization and the separation of absolute and relative. Oh, and Reefs has stated in the last few days that we are talking within the context of SR. The absolute is all that is. Do yo have any idea what that means?
|
|