|
Post by tenka on Oct 16, 2018 9:47:34 GMT -5
.. Okay, so you say there is only experience of fish and there is no enduring substance, but what is the substance? Is it real substance? You speak about the same fish endures over time which is of an illusory nature, what is not of an illusory nature of the mind that you have as your foundation and comparison? I said the same fish does not endure over time. I am trying to get a foundation of everything being real or everything not . There seems to be a mixed foundation in regards to what is real and what is not within this reality . What I am suggesting is that you can't have a reality where nothing is of any real substance knowing Truths . Knowing Truths in reflection of what is supposedly real that is beyond this reality / world / mind . This is why when anyone starts saying what is and what isn't this or that then I need to understand their foundation, their foundation based upon their comparison . It's straightforward isn't it . I declare for instance that I AM human in comparison to what I know as something that is not human . You having an idea of what is not real or of any real substance must be concluded based upon what you know that is . In regards to what is experienced and what is imagined, one would have to know what non experience is . I know of self / no self based upon an absence . That is my comparison . What I imagine in my mind now is that I AM doing the robot dance while in my experience I AM actually replying to you, sitting down . If there is no sound foundation to that which is present experiencing then there cannot be a sound foundation to what is imagined can there .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2018 20:45:51 GMT -5
I said the same fish does not endure over time. I am trying to get a foundation of everything being real or everything not . There seems to be a mixed foundation in regards to what is real and what is not within this reality . What I am suggesting is that you can't have a reality where nothing is of any real substance knowing Truths . Knowing Truths in reflection of what is supposedly real that is beyond this reality / world / mind . This is why when anyone starts saying what is and what isn't this or that then I need to understand their foundation, their foundation based upon their comparison . It's straightforward isn't it . I declare for instance that I AM human in comparison to what I know as something that is not human . You having an idea of what is not real or of any real substance must be concluded based upon what you know that is . In regards to what is experienced and what is imagined, one would have to know what non experience is . I know of self / no self based upon an absence . That is my comparison . What I imagine in my mind now is that I AM doing the robot dance while in my experience I AM actually replying to you, sitting down . If there is no sound foundation to that which is present experiencing then there cannot be a sound foundation to what is imagined can there .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 16, 2018 20:47:28 GMT -5
New text because the old box is messed up again:
So comparison implies relativity, and I'm also saying 'dependent arising', 'contingent', 'relative' but there is that which has no relative quality, and 'just is'. This might be called a foundation, as the Dzogchen say 'ground of being', but to me at least, that's no explanation for experience. Other's seem to think they know, but I have no reason to believe them.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 2:09:56 GMT -5
New text because the old box is messed up again: So comparison implies relativity, and I'm also saying 'dependent arising', 'contingent', 'relative' but there is that which has no relative quality, and 'just is'. This might be called a foundation, as the Dzogchen say 'ground of being', but to me at least, that's no explanation for experience. Other's seem to think they know, but I have no reason to believe them. Sure comparison is relative to something else, be it the same or otherwise . That's why I can compare and relate to experiencing writing this post while I know that I am only imagining running naked through the forest . So when anyone say's to me this world is of no real substance and what is not permanent isn't real they have to have a comparison within mind in order to declare that . They have to unless they are just saying it for the sake of saying it . I am finding it most difficult to get any answers regarding these comparisons and foundations . It's like all this stuff is unreal and like a dream yada yada for this is just armchair philosophy . I want to hear from hardcore peeps that are living their beliefs and then speak to me in a way where I can relate to where they are coming from and what they are saying . Thus far peeps suggest this and that about this reality, throwing a load of words into the hat, then don't explain there foundations in reflection of them and round and round we go . This is why for how many years there is the same conversations being had with no headway . I still don't know if you can relate to the scenario where if everything is of no real substance then everything that is concluding that has no real foundation either . This is the futility of it all . You said yourself you can't answer if the I AM that knows this world to be unreal is the same I AM that wants to lift weights knowing that this reality has no real substance . For myself I think knowing another's foundation is necessary when speaking along these lines .
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2018 4:09:36 GMT -5
New text because the old box is messed up again: So comparison implies relativity, and I'm also saying 'dependent arising', 'contingent', 'relative' but there is that which has no relative quality, and 'just is'. This might be called a foundation, as the Dzogchen say 'ground of being', but to me at least, that's no explanation for experience. Other's seem to think they know, but I have no reason to believe them. Sure comparison is relative to something else, be it the same or otherwise . That's why I can compare and relate to experiencing writing this post while I know that I am only imagining running naked through the forest . So when anyone say's to me this world is of no real substance and what is not permanent isn't real they have to have a comparison within mind in order to declare that . They have to unless they are just saying it for the sake of saying it . I am finding it most difficult to get any answers regarding these comparisons and foundations . It's like all this stuff is unreal and like a dream yada yada for this is just armchair philosophy . I want to hear from hardcore peeps that are living their beliefs and then speak to me in a way where I can relate to where they are coming from and what they are saying . Thus far peeps suggest this and that about this reality, throwing a load of words into the hat, then don't explain there foundations in reflection of them and round and round we go . This is why for how many years there is the same conversations being had with no headway . I still don't know if you can relate to the scenario where if everything is of no real substance then everything that is concluding that has no real foundation either . This is the futility of it all . You said yourself you can't answer if the I AM that knows this world to be unreal is the same I AM that wants to lift weights knowing that this reality has no real substance . For myself I think knowing another's foundation is necessary when speaking along these lines . I have said that there is that beyond, called that a ground of being, which is not contingent, dependent, relative and so on. I'm not sure about the comparison in the sense of objectifying that which makes that relative to relative things. That has no link to the relative and contingent. However, the knowing of that as The Not which I am not, without being the same 'thing', but being the 'same as' my nature.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 5:01:42 GMT -5
Sure comparison is relative to something else, be it the same or otherwise . That's why I can compare and relate to experiencing writing this post while I know that I am only imagining running naked through the forest . So when anyone say's to me this world is of no real substance and what is not permanent isn't real they have to have a comparison within mind in order to declare that . They have to unless they are just saying it for the sake of saying it . I am finding it most difficult to get any answers regarding these comparisons and foundations . It's like all this stuff is unreal and like a dream yada yada for this is just armchair philosophy . I want to hear from hardcore peeps that are living their beliefs and then speak to me in a way where I can relate to where they are coming from and what they are saying . Thus far peeps suggest this and that about this reality, throwing a load of words into the hat, then don't explain there foundations in reflection of them and round and round we go . This is why for how many years there is the same conversations being had with no headway . I still don't know if you can relate to the scenario where if everything is of no real substance then everything that is concluding that has no real foundation either . This is the futility of it all . You said yourself you can't answer if the I AM that knows this world to be unreal is the same I AM that wants to lift weights knowing that this reality has no real substance . For myself I think knowing another's foundation is necessary when speaking along these lines . I have said that there is that beyond, called that a ground of being, which is not contingent, dependent, relative and so on. I'm not sure about the comparison in the sense of objectifying that which makes that relative to relative things. That has no link to the relative and contingent. However, the knowing of that as The Not which I am not, without being the same 'thing', but being the 'same as' my nature. Yes, you have related to the 'ground of being' beyond but from where? From beyond or from where you stand now? Where do you stand now? Your not sure of things in relation to this, but you are sure that there is a beyond that is referred to as the 'ground of being' by comparing that with what's here . If you suggest that what is here present is of no real foundation / substance does that mean that what you say and what you compare what is beyond with holds any weight? In my eyes anything that is said in an environment that is unreal to begin with cannot entertain anything that holds any weight . Are you saying that it is possible for what anyone say's to hold any weight or be of any clarity or truth that pertains to something that is no of a real substance to begin with . Like said it's either a real individual being able to speak with clarity and such likes or it's just a unreal appearance that is just story based whose talking a load of old pony . To even discuss these matters one must have the comparison / realization / knowing of what has a sound foundation and what is old hat . This is the key point to this discussion . Can what you are of no real substance speak with clarity about this reality being of unreal substance and speak with clarity about that which is beyond this unreal reality? Be good to get your opinion on this.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 17, 2018 6:59:07 GMT -5
I have said that there is that beyond, called that a ground of being, which is not contingent, dependent, relative and so on. I'm not sure about the comparison in the sense of objectifying that which makes that relative to relative things. That has no link to the relative and contingent. However, the knowing of that as The Not which I am not, without being the same 'thing', but being the 'same as' my nature. Yes, you have related to the 'ground of being' beyond but from where? From beyond or from where you stand now? Where do you stand now? Your not sure of things in relation to this, but you are sure that there is a beyond that is referred to as the 'ground of being' by comparing that with what's here . It's very strange because it's not a discovery made by comparison and there is no one who has reason why or how for it being as it is. It is a an unexpected thing that is suddenly obvious, as if entirely mundane, yet also most profound, though without any fanfare or excitement. It seems as though That is unaware of any experience, and you are going to insist because I am It that I have experienced so It has experiences, but this is something which the mind cannot touch... The truth is the most important of all things, and those who live by it become strong. This isn;t about things being real. It is about being real, and not about being something. The individual isn't really there. The individual is perpetuated in continual rebirth by volitions of the mind. Because the mind is a bit dull it appears as if there's continuity, but when the mind is really sharp, you see no aspect of mind or body endures. Then you understand, even when the mind goes dull again, It only seems as if an individual remains continuous over time when it is reformed momentarily. No. These matters are discussed in a way that the foundation crumbles and you have nothing left to grasp. In the end, all grasping is holding on to the known, and you are insisting on a foundation for knowledge which can be held on to. I think I speak reasonably clearly on it, but not, like, Nis or anything.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 7:45:54 GMT -5
Yes, you have related to the 'ground of being' beyond but from where? From beyond or from where you stand now? Where do you stand now? Your not sure of things in relation to this, but you are sure that there is a beyond that is referred to as the 'ground of being' by comparing that with what's here . It's very strange because it's not a discovery made by comparison and there is no one who has reason why or how for it being as it is. It is a an unexpected thing that is suddenly obvious, as if entirely mundane, yet also most profound, though without any fanfare or excitement. .. I don't understand . From where are you speaking? Here or beyond . You have to know of a comparison otherwise there would be no distinction between here or beyond . For instance there is a clear / stark comparison had between self and no self . There perhaps cannot be anything clearer in this regard . If you are speaking of being here and 'being as it is' you are here having a reference for that are you not? You know what is means in comparison for a previous state of perception attained, correct? This is what I mean when we can't even speak about it without having a comparison for it, otherwise there would no references to 'just being' here or there . To even speak of experience and imagination one already has the comparison otherwise one wouldn't know what one was talking about, correct?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 7:56:30 GMT -5
If you suggest that what is here present is of no real foundation / substance does that mean that what you say and what you compare what is beyond with holds any weight? .. Maybe there is some flexibility in regards to what constitutes an experience . I would say being aware of this world is an experience . Maybe when peeps are sky high on drugs there is an experience had but at the time there is just seeing stuff in a way where there is less of a self fixed reflection somehow in regards to what is happening / perceived . But even then there has to be a sense of what is perceived being real or not, and in the same vein when a peep goes to the gym and knows that they are going to the gym to get strong they are in a particular mind state that knows exactly what is going on and for why it is going on . Non functioning and out of one's ordinary mind like said can give a different experience of the experience lol, but we have to be exact here on what 'just being as it it' refers too . I don't see anyone for instance having an argument with the misses suggesting that there isn't an awareness of any experience .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 8:07:41 GMT -5
.. Well truth is only important to that which holds the comparison in mind that has understandings of what is most important or not relating to truth or not . You see, you can't get away with not having these comparisons . You mentioned that this world is of an unreal substance so I am going along with that, trying to establish how you can ascertain that truth is the most important of all things when this world has no real substance to it . Perhaps you think it has no substance to it at all, but what you are of this world knows the importance of truth . This in my eyes doesn't make sense .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 8:15:24 GMT -5
.. I don't really follow .. What examples / comparisons do you have that is of the mind that gave you that impression?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 17, 2018 8:24:12 GMT -5
.. The foundation crumbles when there is no longer a foundation, not while discussing what is here and what isn't, what is of any real substance or not . Who/m is lifting weights or not . You spoke about the importance of truth because you have a comparison of that which is part of your foundation . If there is nothing left to grasp one wouldn't be speaking of anything that is supposedly important . We have to be exact I would say, sounds kinda tedious I know, but like said, if we are speaking about arguing with the misses while not being aware of the experience, one wouldn't be arguing in the first place ..
|
|