|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Nov 6, 2018 10:21:54 GMT -5
Certainly. Just PM me if you want to do that. (** pours water into a metal bowl so as to eavesdrop **) Oooh, hydromancy!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:23:03 GMT -5
okie dokie, but for the sake of clarity, that's what paragraphs are usually for. For the sake of clarity, it's better simply to see a giraffe, as a giraffe. If your communication had been clearer, I would have looked at the time to see whether I agreed with you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:23:25 GMT -5
No, that's not what I meant. Want to know what I did mean? No, but it would be useful if your writing was clearer the first time you say something (if possible). Well, to be fair, what I should have written rather that "that's not what I meant" was "no, that's not what I was thinking". That's two examples of poor communication. I cherish such opinions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:25:35 GMT -5
For the sake of clarity, it's better simply to see a giraffe, as a giraffe. If your communication had been clearer, I would have looked at the time to see whether I agreed with you. The word "giraffe" was underlined in what I wrote, and the giraffe was underlined in what you wrote. Would you rather I post a giraffe pic with the words stating the giraffe as a caption next time?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:26:26 GMT -5
No, but it would be useful if your writing was clearer the first time you say something (if possible). Well, to be fair, what I should have written rather that "that's not what I meant" was "no, that's not what I was thinking". That's two examples of poor communication. I cherish such opinions. Maybe you aren't taking a moment to respond to what is said...instead you are 'reacting'. If you slow down a little, you will say what you mean, and your communication will be clearer.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:27:25 GMT -5
If your communication had been clearer, I would have looked at the time to see whether I agreed with you. The word "giraffe" was underlined in what I wrote, and the giraffe was underlined in what you wrote. Would you rather I post a giraffe pic with the words stating the giraffe as a caption next time? I'd rather you didn't string 'independent' sentences together, and instead, you used your language skills a bit more effectively.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 6, 2018 10:29:11 GMT -5
But you also say 'what you are' is not dependent on experience or a universe or anything at all. ('moment' and 'endure' contradict) What you are is all there is that is of the mind experience and beyond . What you are therefore endures each moment while of the mind . Beyond mind is what you are beyond experience . You seem to divide what you are with what is experienced in a way where what is temporary isn't real .
That perception of this temporary moment by moment experienced reality is reflected in how you see yourself and what is real and what isn't .Personally, I have no reason to believe that theory. You don't believe that theory because of how you see yourself in reflection of the theory .So you call self a foundation. Self or what you are is all there is . There can only be a foundation of Self . It doesn't matter if you see yourself as only a human being or an illusion or a story character for instance, it will not negate the actual Self foundation . If you did believe that you are a story character for instance then your perceptional foundation will be in reflection how you see yourself a s a story character.
This story character cannot be saying they are really experiencing this reality because the reality isn't real to begin with (in this context) however the foundation for that perception can only be real (in Self context) no matter what a peep say's about it .Seems reasonable to me. It is you that imagines a pond to be real. I only say I actually experience the pond - or I know "this is what it's like in the way I am experiencing it". Well not quite, you have been saying that there is a difference between 'really' experiencing and imagining . I have said to you before that you can't really be experiencing, you would simply be experiencing . The fact that you made the statement that you are really experiencing rather than simply experiencing, gave weight to the experience that wasn't imagined . Therefore there has to be a substance that differs from that which is really experienced and that which isn't . This difference has to be of a foundation that can sustain / facilitate those differences . If that foundation isn't real to begin with then the differences hold no weight either . This is why when peeps say to me this and that in regards to consciousness or the mind, I ask them is this consciousness or the mind real then? It's temporary because experience is momentary. When I experience the events of the world, sight, sound, thought etc, I am aware of whats going on with me physically as felt sensations. That's how I know myself as affected in the world. I'm grounded with awareness in the body as it is felt by me, and I know it is 'the way it already is'. The way I imagine things, as real or whatever, is not the 'way' things 'just are'. You know 'this reality' isn't real in any context because there is no endurance to your momentary experience. The essential self is beyond, untouched by experience, as if nothing even happened, is happening, or ever will. That is the basis for saying 'the universe is an illusion', 'The Thought', and not the imagined as an afterthought, but as the real living experience, and I haven't any idea of causes, creators, reflections, why, what and how it happens to be as it is - I only know what it's like in the way I experience it to be.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 6, 2018 10:31:53 GMT -5
.. What you are endures each moment as it is .. If you want to somehow divide what you are from the experience then you can have the impression that the reality experienced cannot be of any real substance based upon that division . What is happening is that a specific perception had is attained because of how you see yourself . If there was the foundation had that there is only what you are, then what doesn't last forever as an experience won't have any bearing on what you are whatsoever. The foundation will remain the same regardless . This is the base level foundation that I have been speaking of . It reflects that there cannot be a real fish in an unreal pond . You can imagine the pond to be real but that doesn't change the foundation . The foundation of Self that can imagine or not . FWIW, Zen avoids the whole "foundation" or "appearances" thingy by challenging people to stay silently focused upon "what is." A typical Zen dialogue might go something like this: ZM: Is this (holds up a glass of water) a glass of water or not a glass of water? Monk: (takes the glass of water, has a drink, and hands it back) ZM: Was that drink of water real or unreal? Monk: (takes another drink of water and hands it back) ZM: What is this? (snaps fingers) Monk: (snaps fingers) ZM: What is it that confronts me? Monk: (smiles and waves) ZM: On the ST forum Tenka and other posters have been arguing about the substance of reality. Which posters are correct? Monk: Would you like to join me for a cup of tea? ZM: Yes, thank you. IOW, intellection, speculation, and judgment about what's happening is eschewed in favor of directly seeing, understanding, and responding to the truth of what's going on. What's the advantage of this? Well, it keeps things simple, and combined with meditation it usually leads to a relatively silent mind and many significant existential realizations. Self inquiry can have the same effect, but I suspect that silence, alone, is all that's really necessary for discovering the Infinite. I always like your zen story.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:32:24 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, what I should have written rather that "that's not what I meant" was "no, that's not what I was thinking". I cherish such opinions. Maybe you aren't taking a moment to respond to what is said...instead you are 'reacting'. If you slow down a little, you will say what you mean, and your communication will be clearer. You seem to me to be reacting just as quickly to what write, and it's just as possible that the reason what I'm writing doesn't seem clear to you is because of the reactivity that you're suggesting is all mine.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Nov 6, 2018 10:34:20 GMT -5
This is a dwad, and I don't use that term lightly. We all have a belief in an objective reality, hence why we might speak of correct or accurate perceptions at times. This belief doesn't HAVE to be a problem. Who's this " we", kemosabe? No, not a dwad: the distinction is between an explanation for the appearance of objectivity based on the assumption of an objective reality, or based on a subjective consensus. Subjective consensus only need involve the assumption of a shared commonality between perspectives, but the shared commonality need not be a reality existing independently, outside of the perspectives. Also, the idea of objective reality implies not only an independent existence of that reality outside of the perspectives, but also, that the reality of the perspectives arises within and as dependent upon that outside objective reality, which is usually defined in terms of the senses, and taken to be material in nature. Objective appearances based on the potential for subjective consensus don't involve any of those characteristics: (1) a reality independent of the subjective perspectives (2) an inner/outer boundary between the subjective perspectives and that reality (3) that the reality is defined by the senses (4) that the perspectives arise within and as dependent upon that reality I can understand how it might seem like a dwad to you, but there is a substantial modern culture of philosophy that tries to account for the metaphysical result of the collapse of the material assumption, and this is one of the ways they go about that. Also, mushin is action with a quiescent mind, regardless of belief. Also, it's possible to question and suspend all belief in an objective reality, especially while seeking, but still engage with physical appearances and the appearance of other people, in terms that appear to be objective. Such a wonderful writing, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:34:22 GMT -5
The word "giraffe" was underlined in what I wrote, and the giraffe was underlined in what you wrote. Would you rather I post a giraffe pic with the words stating the giraffe as a caption next time? I'd rather you didn't string 'independent' sentences together, and instead, you used your language skills a bit more effectively. are you serious with this tone right now? Really? 'cause like .. if so .. man .. funny bonez dude ... funny bonez ...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:38:23 GMT -5
Maybe you aren't taking a moment to respond to what is said...instead you are 'reacting'. If you slow down a little, you will say what you mean, and your communication will be clearer. You seem to me to be reacting just as quickly to what write, and it's just as possible that the reason what I'm writing doesn't seem clear to you is because of the reactivity that you're suggesting is all mine. You admitted you didn't say what you meant, and that the 2 sentences were independent. I'm sure you can communicate more effectively than that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:42:27 GMT -5
Who's this " we", kemosabe? No, not a dwad: the distinction is between an explanation for the appearance of objectivity based on the assumption of an objective reality, or based on a subjective consensus. Subjective consensus only need involve the assumption of a shared commonality between perspectives, but the shared commonality need not be a reality existing independently, outside of the perspectives. Also, the idea of objective reality implies not only an independent existence of that reality outside of the perspectives, but also, that the reality of the perspectives arises within and as dependent upon that outside objective reality, which is usually defined in terms of the senses, and taken to be material in nature. Objective appearances based on the potential for subjective consensus don't involve any of those characteristics: (1) a reality independent of the subjective perspectives (2) an inner/outer boundary between the subjective perspectives and that reality (3) that the reality is defined by the senses (4) that the perspectives arise within and as dependent upon that reality I can understand how it might seem like a dwad to you, but there is a substantial modern culture of philosophy that tries to account for the metaphysical result of the collapse of the material assumption, and this is one of the ways they go about that. Also, mushin is action with a quiescent mind, regardless of belief. Also, it's possible to question and suspend all belief in an objective reality, especially while seeking, but still engage with physical appearances and the appearance of other people, in terms that appear to be objective. Such a wonderful writing, thanks. Hey! Look! It's the philosophy shredder!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 6, 2018 10:42:36 GMT -5
I'd rather you didn't string 'independent' sentences together, and instead, you used your language skills a bit more effectively. are you serious with this tone right now? Really? 'cause like .. if so .. man .. funny bonez dude ... funny bonez ... I'm not sure what tone you are picking up
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 6, 2018 10:46:04 GMT -5
You seem to me to be reacting just as quickly to what write, and it's just as possible that the reason what I'm writing doesn't seem clear to you is because of the reactivity that you're suggesting is all mine. You admitted you didn't say what you meant, and that the 2 sentences were independent. I'm sure you can communicate more effectively than that. Giraffe. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether two sentences that convey two independent ideas necessarily require a paragraph for the sake of clarity.
|
|