|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 11:11:52 GMT -5
The problem is that we don't agree on the definition of the term 'unreal', 'substance' and 'truth'. You'll never get the foundations right until you understand what we mean by those terms. I've tried to explain the problem many times but you ignore it and proceed to talk about how wrong your interpretation of what we say is. It's a tremendous waste of time. I don't know what Lolly means by 'real' any more than I know what you mean by it. I only say it's really experienced, it's actually experienced, but since no aspect of the sensation endures, there is no enduring substance to it. Okay
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 11:16:08 GMT -5
That's kinda melodramatic. Is there any footage from the grassy knoll?? A security cam at the 7-11 caught the whole messy affair.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 11:25:12 GMT -5
At the gross level of experience sensation seems to occupy a large area and last for a while, but when looked at closely you can see that large area of sensation is made up of many smaller sensations, and those smaller sensations made up of many even smaller sensations. The subtle sensation occupies a very small area, it is tiny, and it is passing by the millisecond.
You see you speak about gross levels compared to other levels, sensations that last for so long and you for some reason don't apply any substance to them . Let me run by you the definition of substance one more time , substance is a particular kind of matter with uniform properties so what you speak of regarding grosser levels of experience must relate to certain properties that entertain the grossness . You have your fingers in your ears doing the lalala song and your are burying your head in the sand .
I am now the culmination of all my past experience. I claim there is no 'substance' whatsoever. A snail is defined by the qualities, slimy slug-like thing with a shell, but there is no substance that has those qualities.
I don't care what you claim it's just not true what you say . Where there are properties and qualities there is a substance of that nature . I quoted you saying that there was enduring substance earlier . I keep saying I really experience, but don't experience a reality. I really experience the tree - it is an actualised real-lived experience, but I don't experience a 'reality of the tree'. There is change, but there is no substance which is changing. The tree of a moment ago is completely gone - no substance of it remains. Now I ask you, I know you experience snails and trees and things, but do you actually experience a substance?
It becomes confusing because you hear me making contradictions which I didn't even say.
.. It becomes confusing because it is a contextual mess . You can't really be experiencing anything if what is experienced has no real substance or structure . Your toadally ignoring the foundation that you need something real to really experience . You need to try and understand this . If you don't agree then tell me why, but we are going round in circles here . Self is either real or it isn't in your eyes . Self is all there is . You can't really experience something that has no sound foundation . It is the dream within the dream, the illusory character saying the world is illusory . It's a contextual mess that doesn't work . Finally, a definition of substance. It seems we're coming full circle as well. You experience in your nightly dream, and yet there is nothing in it that either you or I would call substance. Experience does not rely upon substance, which is a good thing because there is ultimately no such thing as substance.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 8, 2018 15:19:30 GMT -5
.. It becomes confusing because it is a contextual mess . You can't really be experiencing anything if what is experienced has no real substance or structure . Your toadally ignoring the foundation that you need something real to really experience . You need to try and understand this . If you don't agree then tell me why, but we are going round in circles here . Self is either real or it isn't in your eyes . Self is all there is . You can't really experience something that has no sound foundation . It is the dream within the dream, the illusory character saying the world is illusory . It's a contextual mess that doesn't work . Finally, a definition of substance. It seems we're coming full circle as well. You experience in your nightly dream, and yet there is nothing in it that either you or I would call substance. Experience does not rely upon substance, which is a good thing because there is ultimately no such thing as substance. This is quite simple to explore. In a dream, if you fell off a 20 story building there would be no consequences, you might even start soaring, flying between buildings or above the treetops. But in your ordinary everyday consciousness, in a few seconds, splat, dead. There is no comparison between the two. Sleeping dream, no consequences to actions. Waking ~dream~, consequences. You have constructed an illusory abstract paradigm. (And don't offer to explain context, your paradigm has ONE basic context, I just defeated it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 17:49:09 GMT -5
The case of the mysterious Like - based on a true story, and a real whodunit, featuring Tenk, Tonk, and Jim from shipping who moonlights as the IT guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 18:11:22 GMT -5
yep, getting caught in one of those redirect loop sucks, been there done that, mostly from porn sites
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 18:47:08 GMT -5
You also said "There is only what you are", which is the part of what you said that he directly addressed. Please listen to what I have said . I even wrote a post explaining this . There is only what you are doesn't mean that I AM responsible for you not listening . This is something ever so simple, don't make it into a circus act conversation . What has happened here with laffy and gopal is that they have made up their own conclusion regarding that there is only what you are in regards to what they think I mean by it . No one is effin listening to what I have actually said and like you, you have jumped on their bandwagon, being led by the blind . If you can't respond to what I have ACTUALLY said about it then please stop making things up .This is the tag team wolf club mentality innit . 3 wolves together all totally disregarding what was actually said . Not a good look boys . What you have ACTUALLY said is "There is only what you are." How can what you are not be responsible for everything?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 18:54:34 GMT -5
That's kinda melodramatic. You can take an American out of Christendom though you can't take the Christian out of an American. Edit: What I mean by that is that his reply is typical of any American in the internet that thinks their God is being described less brightly than they picture it. Basically he still has his own triggers and the G word is one of his major ones. There is no God.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 8, 2018 19:03:42 GMT -5
You can take an American out of Christendom though you can't take the Christian out of an American. Edit: What I mean by that is that his reply is typical of any American in the internet that thinks their God is being described less brightly than they picture it. Basically he still has his own triggers and the G word is one of his major ones. There is no God. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 19:29:32 GMT -5
Personally, I'm not into God narratives, and America and religions are human constructs that aren't observable in nature. I'm an Australian citizen, but my love of country is of the land, waters and species. [/b]I love the imaginary nation represented by the flag as well (ambiguous though it is), but it's not observable in nature. [/div][/quote] Yes. I could perhaps express a love for the imaginary nation represented by the flag, but if I look closely, what I love is the idiosyncrasies of the culture, and then I associate this with the imaginary nation, but I am not blind to the fallacy of this. This, quite recently, went viral with the title ''Is there anything more British than this?''. Might be hard to see why from an outsider's perspective, but there is something very....'British' about the way this plays out. [/quote] It went viral in Britain, I assume.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2018 19:34:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 19:45:28 GMT -5
Speaking absolutely, it is impossible to say what the snail 'is'. But perhaps tenka is asking relatively. For example, is there a 'snail', or are you literally just experiencing a pattern of qualities which together create the impression of a 'snail'? Or perhaps the 'snail' is physical form, or energy coalesced into matter? Or....I don't know...I might be wrong because I'm only reading half of your conversation at most, but I think tenka is asking if you believe in 'form', even if this 'form' is constantly changing, and so there is only a constant 'forming'. Edit: reading a little more, I really might be wrong about the core issue you are discussing. I'll butt out. Just trying to establish a baseline here in regards to what we are and the so called properties that Lolly perceives . If what we are is real then the properties are real . It's been that straightforward . If there is really experiencing happening then there is something real that pertains to I that really experiences . I find it as you know difficult to understand how anyone can see a snail having properties and not being of any substance . I find it mind blowing to be honest, I am lost for words .. You can't have something that has properties not being of any substance, when the properties reflect the substance . If everything is consciousness then consciousness has a substance that reflects in all properties . There isn't a 'something' that has properties, just the experience of properties.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 8, 2018 20:04:26 GMT -5
This reminded me of something I read on the HuffPost website from an article called "Why the Buddha Touched the Earth" - "In one of Buddhism’s iconic images, Gautama Buddha sits in meditation with his left palm upright on his lap, while his right hand touches the earth. Demonic forces have tried to unseat him, because their king, Mara, claims that place under the bodhi tree. As they proclaim their leader’s powers, Mara demands that Gautama produce a witness to confirm his spiritual awakening. The Buddha simply touches the earth with his right hand, and the Earth itself immediately responds: “I am your witness.” Mara and his minions vanish. The morning star appears in the sky. This moment of supreme enlightenment is the central experience from which the whole of the Buddhist tradition unfolds." Mara only appeared for that moment of communion to happen. A most perfect example of the 'Tao that cannot be spoken'. :-) Here is another interesting viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 23:30:16 GMT -5
Basically, I agree wit dat, though there is a gray area when it comes to frustration, which I can I can justify. I completely agree with you because the same happens in my life as well, the movement of polarity is in need of such a frustration is what I think. But what ZD calls as realization doesn't fit with me unfortunately. May be what he calls realization something different! Anger seems to involve a judgment about other or others, while frustration involves the thwarting of intent. No personal judgment involved, but if there is the movement to engage the dream with purpose, and this movement is repeatedly blocked, it can result in frustration. Perhaps frustration is being mislabeled as anger. I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2018 23:31:54 GMT -5
You said the rules are required for experience to happen. Did you get confused again? As I already told you, I want to give up this argument with you. You perceive reality differently and I perceive differently. God has fallen into the dream doesn't fit with me. Frustrating, isn't it?
|
|