|
Post by therealfake on Sept 19, 2011 15:28:25 GMT -5
It's contextually true that you post here on this forum, but ultimately there isn't a 'you' doing that, and there isn't a forum 'out there' being posted on. Don't be a brick, Andrew. @ Tath: Life unfolds as a flow of continuity, which one might interpret as robotic, like an automotron that puts one foot in front of the other on autopilot, but it might be disconcerting to take a step in Las Vegas and land in Times Square, especially if you had an appointment with a blackjack table and a whiskey sour. Why does the dang sun rise every morning so robotically and that blasted gravity not let go once in a while just to explore it's non-roboticness? Because it holds together the imaginary continuity of your experience, and you like it that way. From the personal perspective, and entrenched within that paradigm, it does appear robotic, but absolute freedom includes the potential to experience imprisonment. There is a propensity in many of your posts to create a straw man response, wherein one person is commenting on the limitations of intellect, or unconciously unfolding habitual behaviors and beliefs, and you reframe the conversation to something about the futility of CHANGING the physical routines of habits or the functioning of various physical phenomena like the sun rising LOL...there is either a concious or unconcious effort to reframe the conversation so it is focused on the pointlessness of spending time learning to tie your shoes again, or feeling imprisoned by the sun comming up LOL....none of which have anything to do with what was being discussed, except to make you look sage without addressing the real issue, and to support a view that says "working toward breaking the habit of unconcious doing and increasing your concious self awareness is a waste of time"....maybe instead of folks doing the work of peeling back the layers and understanding the nature of themselves better you would be happier if folks would just ask you, and have you explain it to them LOL....seriously though...the ark of your posts, in response to anything anyone says about methods to become more aware of a true nature beyond intellect is that everything people says or recomends is just silly, instead you should just save your mental energy to understand what enigmas saying LOL. So to be clear, in the previous thread about habits we were not saying that one should relearn to tie their shoes or relearn to stir coffee, unless doing so helps that particular individual do these things more conciously LOL....we were saying that one should be more concious in the shoe tying and coffee stirring instead of just habitually doing so without awareness....and by "habit" we are not talking about the "physical routine" that needs to be broken as a habit, we are talking about the act of doing the physical routine without self awareness, or self awareness of where the intent to do the physical routine came from....and in this conversation we are not saying that the sun comming up or gravity holding you down is a prison, we are saying that the continuity of thoughts and beliefs rolling forward without any self awareness of its origens or unconcious manifestations is a kind of prison.. Now, if you want to support a position that says thinking about changing physical routines or worrying about the sun comming up is taking time and energy away from one's ability to think about other philosophical issues I'll agree with you to a point....but that is not the conversation we are having here LOL....we are not having a conversation about conserving the minds intellectual capacity for more fruitful pursuits, like intellectualy grasping what you are trying to teach LOL...we are having a conversation about the means by which one can stop the intellectual robot from moving forward and creating without conciousness of true self, we are having a conversation about the origens of the hardwired belief in a seperate self etc....in short we are talking about the undoing of mind and beliefs for the purpose of uncovering the DIRECT experience and awareness of self instead of the intellectual realization of the nature of true self...which out of love is something I highly encourage you to do LOL...so far it seems that you strongly resist any methods of direct experience of self beyond the intellect....which frankly perplexes me...Becuase if you had had any type of direct intimate experience beyond intellectual realization I highly doubt you would be so critical of things that people say that nudge toward direct experience BEYOND intellectual realization LOL, anything anyone says that goes in the direction of not trusting the intellect seems to get a very strong (often "Straw Man")response LOL....the irony is that intellectually you know that intellectual realization is not enough, but you still defend it in practice tooth and nail, and resist direct experience and methods of self awareness that are not intellectual in nature LOL.....the form of your resistance often takes the shape of these straw man responses wherein you try to reframe the the other persons position into something else, or mischaracterize the statements or positions that others are taking altogether LOL....you do however do it in a wonderfully sage sounding way LOL. Very nice observation Tat, The way I see it, which is from an imaginary point of view, is a phenomena of spiritual egotism. It's a game the mind plays to keep its illusory belief in self importance and thus it's illusory self perpetually intact. Like the folks at RT who reach a new 'imagined self' that realizes that there isn't a self...hehe Or our friend on another post that has reached a new 'imagined self' that is enlightened...hehe The mind game is cruel, because at each new imagined self comes the sense of self importance and belief that their new imagined self is somehow less of an illusion than their previous imagined self...lol And this new imagined self although illusory gets help and is supported from another coy mind thought called 'realization'. Hand in hand they keep the illusion of a self that knows more than the last self, going on and on and on.... The same mechanism, being conscious awareness is the same mechanism that must be ruthlessly used against all those spiritually superior imaginary selves. But folks just can't help being sucked into self importance by the thoughts of the mind and it always happens in times of unconsciousness...heh The battle is for 'intent', either the awareness uses it or the mind uses it, the difference is heaven or hell, conscious or unconscious... Peace
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 15:30:43 GMT -5
From my position, I would rarely find it necessary to question whether its true that the sun is hot. I might only question it if I see someone attached to an old way of thinking. But I wouldnt say its either ultimately true or contextually true that the sun is hot. I would more likely say that its an idea that I have agreed on some level to accept for the most part because I have also agreed to experience the sun as being hot and have also agreed to experience the way the sun warms the earth. This agreement doesnt make the idea necessarily true, either contextually or ultimately. The 'territory' is inherently unknowable even if we agree (as we have done in this reality) to think we know something about it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 15:31:37 GMT -5
Thinking.....I dont have much issue with the idea of 'context' in itself as it seems to me that context is only as illusionary as multiplicity. In terms of our other conversation, stories and context are basically the same thing. However, I think where I struggle firstly, is with the idea that its unproblematic (in realization terms) to believe an idea to be true (whether you would say its contextually true or not), because where there is an idea believed to be true there is a belief in a believer. Secondly, what you are implying is that specific contexts can be accurately perceived and known, whereas I would say that contexts are unknowable and ever changing. I wouldn't say that context is an idea believed to be true. It's more of a way of talking about appearances and pointing to the idea that none of them are ultimately true. No, I'm not implying that a given context is absolute. Context, by definition, is relative.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 15:53:00 GMT -5
Hey dog "You're not here, the forum's not here" (paraphrased) Can you expound on that in the simplest way possible? Woof! Are you talking to me and are you referring to this:
|
|
|
Post by ernie on Sept 19, 2011 16:03:25 GMT -5
My significant other was shown this quote twice in the last hour when she reminded me about cooking dinner after losing the coin flip. I know she's not buying it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 16:04:44 GMT -5
Thinking.....I dont have much issue with the idea of 'context' in itself as it seems to me that context is only as illusionary as multiplicity. In terms of our other conversation, stories and context are basically the same thing. However, I think where I struggle firstly, is with the idea that its unproblematic (in realization terms) to believe an idea to be true (whether you would say its contextually true or not), because where there is an idea believed to be true there is a belief in a believer. Secondly, what you are implying is that specific contexts can be accurately perceived and known, whereas I would say that contexts are unknowable and ever changing. I wouldn't say that context is an idea believed to be true. It's more of a way of talking about appearances and pointing to the idea that none of them are ultimately true. No, I'm not implying that a given context is absolute. Context, by definition, is relative. Right, context is relative by definition. Which means the idea that an idea can be contextually true is a misnomer. An idea is just an idea. And no idea is 'true'. One idea is not more 'true' than another 'idea'. The idea that the sun is hot is no more true than the idea that spinach flavoured ice cream is THE best ice-cream, its just that the idea that the sun is hot is more readily accepted and agreed upon. So there is no contextual truth and ultimate truth, there are just 'ideas' and there is 'truth'.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 16:08:33 GMT -5
There is a propensity in many of your posts to create a straw man response, wherein one person is commenting on the limitations of intellect, or the unconciously unfolding habitual behaviors and beliefs, and you reframe the conversation to something about the futility of CHANGING the physical routines of habits or the functioning of various physical phenomena like the sun rising LOL... I tend to comment on statements that seem to be exaggerations or misconceptions. To say that mind cannot have an original thought does hint at the limitations of mind, but my first unoriginal thought is that every thought originally occurred in the mind, so it can't actually be true. To say that mind is robotic, putting one foot in front of the other like an automotron does hint at the unconscious nature of mind but it also seems to dismiss imagination, creativity, courage, compassion and countless other wonders of the human experience. Likewise, when one states that all habits are bondage and should be stopped, it might hint at the unconscious aspect of habits that MAY be happening, but it implies that the routine behaviors are the problem and not the (often purposeful) unconscious aspect of them. Aktuly, becoming conscious is pretty much all I talk about, which is also the focus when one blurts out an exaggeration or misconception. Noticing is the process of becoming conscious. You've spent too much time thinking about my views on practices and now you see me with an anti-practice agenda in every post you read. This is mind acting like a habitual robot that never has an original idea. LOL I don't recall ever resisting the idea of direct experience, though I DO recall pointing out the difference between experiencing and realization. If what you want is cool mind states, there are endless methods to bring these about. The mature seeker eventually loses interest in them. I tend not to talk about my direct experiences, partly because they don't mean much, and partly because it would be a distraction to encourage peeps to pursue them. My discussion with question, as well as most of what i say about noticing, is entirely about pointing to realization beyond intellectual understanding. However, it's true that it's not about having cool woo woo experiences that come and go and leave one precisely where they were except for the belief that now they know something others don't. Never trust the intellect. Nothing you can think is true. That's actually what I've been saying. That was a very good post enigma
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 16:11:27 GMT -5
What we are talking about here are realities. Although each experiencer experiences a unique reality, and this reality is constantly changing, and there are infinite potentials and possibilities.....there are some agreements between experiencers. There is a 'general' reality. For example, in the human general reality, 'the sun is hot'. That doesnt mean that this general reality is more true than a reality in which the sun is cold. No realities are 'true', because 'truth' is prior to all realities.
Other examples of the general reality we have agreed to experience are 'duality, decline, death, pain, lack, conditional love'. None of these things are a given though and some are already experiencing a quite different reality.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 16:32:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that context is an idea believed to be true. It's more of a way of talking about appearances and pointing to the idea that none of them are ultimately true. No, I'm not implying that a given context is absolute. Context, by definition, is relative. Right, context is relative by definition. Which means the idea that an idea can be contextually true is a misnomer. An idea is just an idea. And no idea is 'true'. One idea is not more 'true' than another 'idea'. The idea that the sun is hot is no more true than the idea that spinach flavoured ice cream is THE best ice-cream, its just that the idea that the sun is hot is more readily accepted and agreed upon. So there is no contextual truth and ultimate truth, there are just 'ideas' and there is 'truth'. Agreed 100%...everything, from the sun comming up, to a passing idea that does not get selected for transition into a fully physically manifested belief is just a thought...it is the I amness minding....mind is a happening not a thing, it is the activity of I amness, and the activity selects categorizes and Builds belief structures contextually...if the I amness is on an autopilot selection process selecting one idea over others, it becomes a belief...that belief then becomes a reality created by the I amness...if the belief is shared across enough I amnesses it becomes a shared manifested belief, like the sun comming up LOL...this is the source of supposed miracles like Jesus walking on water LOL...look who was there when Jesus walked on water....it was him and his closest disciples...and in that group it would be easy for them to have the shared belief that Jesus could walk on water to the point where it became a physical reality...Jesus went on to say that anyone could do this if you chose to by chosing the belief....it was a visceral teaching lesson on the nature of reality as subject to thoughts and ideas taking on the power of belief LOL....point being...all "reality" inside and out is an action taking place by you...its not you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 16:58:40 GMT -5
Right, context is relative by definition. Which means the idea that an idea can be contextually true is a misnomer. An idea is just an idea. And no idea is 'true'. One idea is not more 'true' than another 'idea'. The idea that the sun is hot is no more true than the idea that spinach flavoured ice cream is THE best ice-cream, its just that the idea that the sun is hot is more readily accepted and agreed upon. So there is no contextual truth and ultimate truth, there are just 'ideas' and there is 'truth'. Agreed 100%...everything, from the sun comming up, to a passing idea that does not get selected for transition into a fully physically manifested belief is just a thought...it is the I amness minding....mind is a happening not a thing, it is the activity of I amness, and the activity selects categorizes and Builds belief structures contextually...if the I amness is on an autopilot selection process selecting one idea over others, it becomes a belief...that belief then becomes a reality created by the I amness...if the belief is shared across enough I amnesses it becomes a shared manifested belief, like the sun comming up LOL...this is the source of supposed miracles like Jesus walking on water LOL...look who was there when Jesus walked on water....it was him and his closest disciples...and in that group it would be easy for them to have the shared belief that Jesus could walk on water to the point where it became a physical reality...Jesus went on to say that anyone could do this if you chose to by chosing the belief....it was a visceral teaching lesson on the nature of reality as subject to thoughts and ideas taking on the power of belief LOL....point being...all "reality" inside and out is an action taking place by you...its not you. Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 17:07:08 GMT -5
Yes E, that was the actual quote. Care to elaborate? Oops on the dog reference, I've been reading the Tao lately, and mixed up straw dog with straw man. Hehe The person is an idea rather than an actuality, so there isn't a personal doer, so ultimately it's not true that you posted. Inside and outside are ultimately just conceptual bifurcations as everything is happening in consciousness, so it's not ultimately true that there's a forum 'out there'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 17:09:27 GMT -5
My significant other was shown this quote twice in the last hour when she reminded me about cooking dinner after losing the coin flip. I know she's not buying it. ;D So maybe there won't be a contextual dinner tonight? ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 17:19:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that context is an idea believed to be true. It's more of a way of talking about appearances and pointing to the idea that none of them are ultimately true. No, I'm not implying that a given context is absolute. Context, by definition, is relative. Right, context is relative by definition. Which means the idea that an idea can be contextually true is a misnomer. An idea is just an idea. And no idea is 'true'. One idea is not more 'true' than another 'idea'. The idea that the sun is hot is no more true than the idea that spinach flavoured ice cream is THE best ice-cream, its just that the idea that the sun is hot is more readily accepted and agreed upon. So there is no contextual truth and ultimate truth, there are just 'ideas' and there is 'truth'. Then again, it's equally true that one idea IS more true than another idea. This is what I mean by mind chasing it's tail.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 19, 2011 17:30:56 GMT -5
It looks like your paradox-embracing attitude is contextually limited, Andrew. And congratulations to Enigma for venturing in your basement. It's designed and decorated very well, but it's not easy to find the exit (welcome to the Hotel California).
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 17:31:26 GMT -5
There is a propensity in many of your posts to create a straw man response, wherein one person is commenting on the limitations of intellect, or unconciously unfolding habitual behaviors and beliefs, and you reframe the conversation to something about the futility of CHANGING the physical routines of habits or the functioning of various physical phenomena like the sun rising LOL...there is either a concious or unconcious effort to reframe the conversation so it is focused on the pointlessness of spending time learning to tie your shoes again, or feeling imprisoned by the sun comming up LOL....none of which have anything to do with what was being discussed, except to make you look sage without addressing the real issue, and to support a view that says "working toward breaking the habit of unconcious doing and increasing your concious self awareness is a waste of time"....maybe instead of folks doing the work of peeling back the layers and understanding the nature of themselves better you would be happier if folks would just ask you, and have you explain it to them LOL....seriously though...the ark of your posts, in response to anything anyone says about methods to become more aware of a true nature beyond intellect is that everything people says or recomends is just silly, instead you should just save your mental energy to understand what enigmas saying LOL. So to be clear, in the previous thread about habits we were not saying that one should relearn to tie their shoes or relearn to stir coffee, unless doing so helps that particular individual do these things more conciously LOL....we were saying that one should be more concious in the shoe tying and coffee stirring instead of just habitually doing so without awareness....and by "habit" we are not talking about the "physical routine" that needs to be broken as a habit, we are talking about the act of doing the physical routine without self awareness, or self awareness of where the intent to do the physical routine came from....and in this conversation we are not saying that the sun comming up or gravity holding you down is a prison, we are saying that the continuity of thoughts and beliefs rolling forward without any self awareness of its origens or unconcious manifestations is a kind of prison.. Now, if you want to support a position that says thinking about changing physical routines or worrying about the sun comming up is taking time and energy away from one's ability to think about other philosophical issues I'll agree with you to a point....but that is not the conversation we are having here LOL....we are not having a conversation about conserving the minds intellectual capacity for more fruitful pursuits, like intellectualy grasping what you are trying to teach LOL...we are having a conversation about the means by which one can stop the intellectual robot from moving forward and creating without conciousness of true self, we are having a conversation about the origens of the hardwired belief in a seperate self etc....in short we are talking about the undoing of mind and beliefs for the purpose of uncovering the DIRECT experience and awareness of self instead of the intellectual realization of the nature of true self...which out of love is something I highly encourage you to do LOL...so far it seems that you strongly resist any methods of direct experience of self beyond the intellect....which frankly perplexes me...Becuase if you had had any type of direct intimate experience beyond intellectual realization I highly doubt you would be so critical of things that people say that nudge toward direct experience BEYOND intellectual realization LOL, anything anyone says that goes in the direction of not trusting the intellect seems to get a very strong (often "Straw Man")response LOL....the irony is that intellectually you know that intellectual realization is not enough, but you still defend it in practice tooth and nail, and resist direct experience and methods of self awareness that are not intellectual in nature LOL.....the form of your resistance often takes the shape of these straw man responses wherein you try to reframe the the other persons position into something else, or mischaracterize the statements or positions that others are taking altogether LOL....you do however do it in a wonderfully sage sounding way LOL. Very nice observation Tat, The way I see it, which is from an imaginary point of view, is a phenomena of spiritual egotism. It's a game the mind plays to keep its illusory belief in self importance and thus it's illusory self perpetually intact. Like the folks at RT who reach a new 'imagined self' that realizes that there isn't a self...hehe Or our friend on another post that has reached a new 'imagined self' that is enlightened...hehe The mind game is cruel, because at each new imagined self comes the sense of self importance and belief that their new imagined self is somehow less of an illusion than their previous imagined self...lol And this new imagined self although illusory gets help and is supported from another coy mind thought called 'realization'. Hand in hand they keep the illusion of a self that knows more than the last self, going on and on and on.... The same mechanism, being conscious awareness is the same mechanism that must be ruthlessly used against all those spiritually superior imaginary selves. But folks just can't help being sucked into self importance by the thoughts of the mind and it always happens in times of unconsciousness...heh The battle is for 'intent', either the awareness uses it or the mind uses it, the difference is heaven or hell, conscious or unconscious... Peace Haha...it is for this very reason that i have gone out of my way to say I was enlightened at a forum linked to a website that has very specific ideas about what an enlightened person should be like...I even went so far as to say that i had reached the ultimate enlightenment LOL... There is this idea that crops up in peoples minds that says that if you are enlightened this is how you should be LOL...and when a person successfully embodies their own idea presto they are enlightened LOL....but its all just an idea...and a creation of a new paradigm of ideas and self identity...I.e. no enlightened person would say they are enlightened LOL...well...I have done the work of unraveling the ideas and intentions and beliefs that create the illusions of individual self...I have observed first hand the nature of manifesting a self both unconciously on autopilot and conciously by conciously creating an aware intent, and manifesting it and acting on it from its source, I have dissolved all that doing into universal stillness and known the oneness beyond oneness that is the unbeing source of all our I amnesses, and having entertained myself enough with concioous versus unconcious manifestation I have decided to surrender all manifestation to a moment by moment outflowing of the stillness...and then in a group that was largely attached to the idea that an enlightened person wouldn't say he was enlightened I said I was not only enlightened but ultimately enlightened LOL...its all just ideas LOL...Osho once said that a true fully aware guru was never going to be what you thought they should be, Becuase what you thought they should be is and idea you have, and any enlightened guru was going to help you undo ideas to get to your true nature...this is a very good idea LOL...in another post Zen quoted someone as saying that the all desires are useless except for the desire for truth...I agree...the desire for truth is still a desire and ultimately it has to be let go of too...but until its time for that the desire for truth can be a very good scapel for removing all the other ideas that obscure the truth... The same can be said for someone in a guru position that has peeled away the illusion and gone beyond into true nature...the only desire that can be of any benefit to you as a helper to others is the desire to undo ideas and beliefs in those asking advice...the means doesn't matter, the method doesn't matter...as long as what the person in front of you is doing is undoing LOL. But to get to the ultimate untruth of you unself, you have to be intimately aware of the awareness that creates the idea of self, and then surrender that awareness into stillness....until then its just a new version of self, albeit an expanded and more comfortable version of the self LOL.
|
|