|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2012 7:43:25 GMT -5
You remind me of me a year ago. Also, I know you don't I. For kicks, about a year ago: In that case when you say "I am what is". You're lying because you're not actually what is. You're just saying that you are for some reason. Really there is only what is. If there is only what is, what's the problem saying I am what is?[/quote] Eggzactly! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2012 8:08:56 GMT -5
For kicks, about a year ago: If there is only what is, what's the problem saying I am what is? Eggzactly! ;D The answer -- which is hilarious-- is: dogma. woof! |
|
|
|
Post by harryd on Jul 15, 2012 3:07:35 GMT -5
You remind me of me a year ago. Is that supposed to flatter me into silence? Hen-pecked StepVhen makes a brief but toothless appearance to save face. A puny response meant to insinuate that lack of engagement equals superiority. When Dogma Fails, the power of silence is summoned - the reliable fallback of the tongue-tied and ham-strung preacher. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 15, 2012 21:26:08 GMT -5
You remind me of me a year ago. Is that supposed to flatter me into silence? Hen-pecked StepVhen makes a brief but toothless appearance to save face. A puny response meant to insinuate that lack of engagement equals superiority. When Dogma Fails, the power of silence is summoned - the reliable fallback of the tongue-tied and ham-strung preacher. Welcome back, Harry, we missed you.  |
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Jul 20, 2012 18:35:23 GMT -5
You remind me of me a year ago. Is that supposed to flatter me into silence? Hen-pecked StepVhen makes a brief but toothless appearance to save face. A puny response meant to insinuate that lack of engagement equals superiority. When Dogma Fails, the power of silence is summoned - the reliable fallback of the tongue-tied and ham-strung preacher. True. I've got nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Jul 20, 2012 19:18:40 GMT -5
You remind me of me a year ago. Also, I know you don't I. For kicks, about a year ago: In that case when you say "I am what is". You're lying because you're not actually what is. You're just saying that you are for some reason. Really there is only what is. If there is only what is, what's the problem saying I am what is?[/quote] None, if that's your actual experience but, the issue, I probably had there is: Why would you say that? If you already know that yourself, wouldn't the only reason for you to talk about it be to point others towards it too? I don't know many people who find that phrase "I am what is" to be particularly helpful. I know many that will say "Aha, now I get what the mystical abstract phrase meant" after they've had a realization by some other means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2012 9:24:21 GMT -5
None, if that's your actual experience but, the issue, I probably had there is: Why would you say that? If you already know that yourself, wouldn't the only reason for you to talk about it be to point others towards it too? I don't know many people who find that phrase "I am what is" to be particularly helpful. I know many that will say "Aha, now I get what the mystical abstract phrase meant" after they've had a realization by some other means. You're right, that is a significant change in a year. What you said last year -- 'You Lie' etc. -- is now 'um well that's not the advice I'd give.' Maybe HarryD will be all saccherinesweet in a year? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 12:20:41 GMT -5
If there is only what is, what's the problem saying I am what is? None, if that's your actual experience.... There is no 'if.' Even if you don't think that's your actual experience, it is. There is no difference between 'what is' and actual experience. Saying 'I am what is' is a direct challenge to the pointer 'there is no you.' There is no you, is it true? Yes and No. Both those answers need to be understood/realized, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Aug 1, 2012 20:04:05 GMT -5
For what. "Need to be realised" for what end exactly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2012 7:36:24 GMT -5
For what. "Need to be realised" for what end exactly? Simple – to answer the question. Do you exist? It’s an idiotic question. OF COURSE is the answer. There is no you, is it true? NO. Okay then ‘you’ is defined... Well what if what is being spoken about is some sort of free willy chooser driver-of-the-bus entity behind the eyes etc? Then, YES it is true, there isn’t one. And NO ‘you’ as defined this way does not exist. But really, do you exist? “ I am what is” They’re no-brainers. In fact quibbling about it is evidence of being caught up in thought. Does that mountain exist? YES OF COURSE, well not really, YES OF COURSE. |
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Aug 3, 2012 5:37:04 GMT -5
Is it possible you are confusing some conflicting ideologies here ?
There's nothing wrong with "thinking", and it's not possible to even get caught up in thought.
It's not possible to say "yes I exist(I am what is)" and "no I don't exist" and retain any sort of coherence.
If I say "there is no you". You can be assured I'm addressing the people who think that there is a self.
If I was addressing people who could see that there is no self on the subject of self, I'd say "the idea of a self one way or the other is totally redundant".
You seem to agree with the first part, the no egoic self, but diverge at the second point the redundancy of the entire idea of self/selfless.
You seem to have just decided that the basic facts of your existence constitute a self. That is of course totally unsupported and I would wonder why you would chose to believe that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2012 7:49:55 GMT -5
Is it possible you are confusing some conflicting ideologies here ? always. I don't have a problem with thinking. Comes and goes like every other thing. Not if you consistenly use the same definition of I. If the definition of I for the affirmative is 'what is' and the definition for the negative is 'personal me, the thinker, the decider, etc.' then both can be said coherently. Obviously if you are using the same terminolgy for both the affirmative and negative then it makes no sense. Okay. If all there is is what is, the problem you are seeing with saying 'I am what is' is that it is redundant. Just what is. This ain't rocket science. But there isn't really a problem with saying 'I am what is' -- it's just a pointer like 'there is no you.' Both are reliant on definitions that must be understood prior to seeing where they are pointing to. Now you argue that in your experience you've seen your pointer of choice to be more effective than 'I am what is.' But primarily what I see is that you're so gung-ho about your pointer that you want to push away others working on the same exact project if they aren't using your pointer. If your goal is really liberating 7B+ you'll need some allies. And this isn't a one-size-fits-all world. |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Aug 3, 2012 23:16:48 GMT -5
woot stepvhen, nice to see you. love the avatar, suits ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 4, 2012 0:57:42 GMT -5
Is it possible you are confusing some conflicting ideologies here ? always. I don't have a problem with thinking. Comes and goes like every other thing. Not if you consistenly use the same definition of I. If the definition of I for the affirmative is 'what is' and the definition for the negative is 'personal me, the thinker, the decider, etc.' then both can be said coherently. Obviously if you are using the same terminolgy for both the affirmative and negative then it makes no sense. Okay. If all there is is what is, the problem you are seeing with saying 'I am what is' is that it is redundant. Just what is. This ain't rocket science. But there isn't really a problem with saying 'I am what is' -- it's just a pointer like 'there is no you.' Both are reliant on definitions that must be understood prior to seeing where they are pointing to. Now you argue that in your experience you've seen your pointer of choice to be more effective than 'I am what is.' But primarily what I see is that you're so gung-ho about your pointer that you want to push away others working on the same exact project if they aren't using your pointer. If your goal is really liberating 7B+ you'll need some allies. And this isn't a one-size-fits-all world. I would argue that relying on the single pointer "there is no self" doesn't really remove a self, just replaces it with a self-image obsessed with a single pointer about "there is no self" |
|
|
|
Post by question on Aug 4, 2012 3:05:55 GMT -5
I would argue that relying on the single pointer "there is no self" doesn't really remove a self, just replaces it with a self-image obsessed with a single pointer about "there is no self" The 'self' doesn't exist, which is why it can't be replaced by anything. Doesn't matter what you're obsessed about, it's never a self that is obsessed. |
|
