|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 17:40:24 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'. 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. Yes, the idea that one idea is more true than another idea is equally as true as any other idea. The circle is complete. This is why in realization we dont come to a point where everything 'makes sense'. We dont come to a point of 'aha, now I understand'. We dont come to a point of completion. In realizing 'truth' we are happy to go nowhere in particular. We are happy to go in circles. We are happy to reside amidst the paradox and create amidst the paradox. We are happy to play with ideas, none of which are attached to as being 'true' (contextually or otherwise!) Which is why the Brahman also consider themselves the keepers of the "Way of Mayaparisatya" or the Path of Paradox.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 19, 2011 17:47:05 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). If Enigma is not careful he may find it hard to escape this basement. Somewhere along the path he found an effective way to justify attaching to some ideas as being true (these ideas he would say are 'contextually true'). The actuality is that one idea is no more true than any other idea. Unless it is. The circle is now complete and mind is left without an idea to attach to as being true. Including this one.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 19, 2011 19:32:40 GMT -5
The movement of mind likes to perpetuate itself with more movement, so it moves from one extreme to the other...from self to no self...from reality to illusion...the mind is a perpetual movement...if it concludes that one extreme is not satisfactory it moves to the other extreme...a budha stays in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Sept 19, 2011 19:46:13 GMT -5
The movement of mind likes to perpetuate itself with more movement, so it moves from one extreme to the other...from self to no self...from reality to illusion...the mind is a perpetual movement...if it concludes that one extreme is not satisfactory it moves to the other extreme...a budha stays in the middle. Oi! You been visiting me again? My guess is that !'l stay home oneday soon with blokes like you here.... to settle me in!
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Sept 19, 2011 19:51:21 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'. 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. one can attach to a positive or a negative thought, and still go round and round inside their head. Weeding your Garden is betta.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 20:18:58 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). I followed the mice to the secret exit hatch.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 19, 2011 20:26:43 GMT -5
I followed the mice to the secret exit hatch. Brilliant idea! This is a time when being a cat comes in handy.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 19, 2011 20:26:44 GMT -5
enigma - Your post reminds me of the Ruthless Truth runaround, with "You don't exist" being the jist of their unproven argument. I guess it's just one of those things where you either get it, or you don't, and no amount of discussion is likely to change that fact. I have a general feel that there is no "out there", as that implies separation, but I still see parts of the whole. But I won't dwell on my not knowing, "thinking about it" is no help whatsoever, as that only accentuates the confusion. The RT folks are a bit like Andrew: not actually wrong, just a little confused. ;D You actually DO exist.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 19, 2011 20:36:57 GMT -5
If Enigma is not careful he may find it hard to escape this basement. Somewhere along the path he found an effective way to justify attaching to some ideas as being true (these ideas he would say are 'contextually true'). The actuality is that one idea is no more true than any other idea. Unless it is. The circle is now complete and mind is left without an idea to attach to as being true. Including this one. I'm happy to see someone without a single bad bone in his body (as Enigma mentioned).
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Sept 19, 2011 20:53:18 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). I followed the mice to the secret exit hatch. www.youtube.com/watch?v=txq_BogA1NM
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Sept 19, 2011 20:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 20, 2011 1:42:12 GMT -5
enigma - Your post reminds me of the Ruthless Truth runaround, with "You don't exist" being the jist of their unproven argument. I guess it's just one of those things where you either get it, or you don't, and no amount of discussion is likely to change that fact. I have a general feel that there is no "out there", as that implies separation, but I still see parts of the whole. But I won't dwell on my not knowing, "thinking about it" is no help whatsoever, as that only accentuates the confusion. The RT folks are a bit like Andrew: not actually wrong, just a little confused. ;D You actually DO exist. The RT folk think they are not confused. I dont know if I am or arent confused. And Im not even sure about that. Now thats proper confusion hehe. I would say that we exist as much as we dont.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 20, 2011 1:46:49 GMT -5
If Enigma is not careful he may find it hard to escape this basement. Somewhere along the path he found an effective way to justify attaching to some ideas as being true (these ideas he would say are 'contextually true'). The actuality is that one idea is no more true than any other idea. Unless it is. The circle is now complete and mind is left without an idea to attach to as being true. Including this one. I'm happy to see someone without a single bad bone in his body (as Enigma mentioned). Cheers dude, you guys are cool too, I wouldnt talk to you if you werent. This is a cool little forum.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2011 1:56:03 GMT -5
I'm happy to see someone without a single bad bone in his body (as Enigma mentioned). Cheers dude, you guys are cool too, I wouldnt talk to you if you werent. This is a cool little forum. It really is!
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 20, 2011 2:30:59 GMT -5
..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 I think the line between a projection and actual is much closer than most think. Without taking the absolutist's view here of all is a projection, in regular life it's not as easy to discern as some folks pretend. For example. At night, if my wife is busy doing stuff around the house, I will often times sit down and play video games for a few hours. Some nights she will walk through the room and look at me and I get the sense that she wants me to stop playing. Is that a projection by me? Maybe? Sometimes I ask her if she wants me to quit and she says yes, other times she says no. And even other times she drops the "I don't care baby". Ugh!! That's the worst. Hahaha. I guess my point is this, regardless of how many posts you have read before, how can you truly know what the group's actual definition of anything is without it being a projection by yourself? Just as I can never know for 100% if my wife is actually wanting me to stop playing or if shes actually content with me playing. And you can take that a step further in saying even after you ask someone a question and get a response, how do you know you aren't projecting what you want upon them, influencing their words to give you the projected (wanted) response? I.E. Police interragators who intimidate people into confessing to things they didn't do. Food for nibblin'........
|
|