|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 14, 2013 22:02:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. LOL.. yeah, that's about right.. how many 'contexts' can you weave into the illusions that contradiction are not fundamental flaws in the message you are preaching? But, you tell them that only non-duality and oneness are true.. and, when people clearly state they don't agree with oneness, you continue to mock, ridicule, and provoke.. you are not consistent within your own beliefs.. Arisha keeps wanting to talk about oneness, but I'm not interested in discussing the subject with her, and in spite of her ongoing mocking and provocations, I pretty much ignore the issue now, which of course leads to more charges of avoiding. You also want to discuss oneness/separation and the same thing happens. You both have views that differ from mine on oneness and I don't know why you want to keep talking about it. So, are you saying that you do not claim that non-duality and oneness are true? I want to talk about oneness and non-duality 'because' our views differ.. and, if you are successful at making the case that your beliefs represent the way existence 'is', i am willing to revise my understandings.. but, you keep imagining excuses for not having open, honest, direct, and respectful discussions about oneness and non-duality.. and, from the fundamental contradictions of your presentations to others it is evident you don't believe your beliefs.. i am offering you the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings you think i have.. you ignore what you cannot intimidate or deceive with illusions.. if you thought your beliefs were valid you would make the case and this would be behind us.. it's really that simple, so.. what's your next excuse? Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 14, 2013 22:38:42 GMT -5
Axshooly, I don't. Arisha keeps wanting to talk about oneness, but I'm not interested in discussing the subject with her, and in spite of her ongoing mocking and provocations, I pretty much ignore the issue now, which of course leads to more charges of avoiding. You also want to discuss oneness/separation and the same thing happens. You both have views that differ from mine on oneness and I don't know why you want to keep talking about it. So, are you saying that you do not claim that non-duality and oneness are true? I want to talk about oneness and non-duality 'because' our views differ.. and, if you are successful at making the case that your beliefs represent the way existence 'is', i am willing to revise my understandings.. but, you keep imagining excuses for not having open, honest, direct, and respectful discussions about oneness and non-duality.. and, from the fundamental contradictions of your presentations to others it is evident you don't believe your beliefs.. i am offering you the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings you think i have.. you ignore what you cannot intimidate or deceive with illusions.. if you thought your beliefs were valid you would make the case and this would be behind us.. it's really that simple, so.. what's your next excuse? Be well.. Make up your mind if I'm shoving my beliefs down your throat, or if I refuse to talk about it. Talk about "fundamental contradictions".  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 8:37:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. So, are you saying that you do not claim that non-duality and oneness are true? I want to talk about oneness and non-duality 'because' our views differ.. and, if you are successful at making the case that your beliefs represent the way existence 'is', i am willing to revise my understandings.. but, you keep imagining excuses for not having open, honest, direct, and respectful discussions about oneness and non-duality.. and, from the fundamental contradictions of your presentations to others it is evident you don't believe your beliefs.. i am offering you the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings you think i have.. you ignore what you cannot intimidate or deceive with illusions.. if you thought your beliefs were valid you would make the case and this would be behind us.. it's really that simple, so.. what's your next excuse? Be well.. Make up your mind if I'm shoving my beliefs down your throat, or if I refuse to talk about it. Talk about "fundamental contradictions". LOL.. c'mon, Phil.. you preach your beliefs, but won't discuss those beliefs in open, honest, direct, neutral discussions.. you can't deliver the goods, so you create the illusions.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 10:13:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Make up your mind if I'm shoving my beliefs down your throat, or if I refuse to talk about it. Talk about "fundamental contradictions". LOL.. c'mon, Phil.. you preach your beliefs, but won't discuss those beliefs in open, honest, direct, neutral discussions.. you can't deliver the goods, so you create the illusions.. Be well.. I'm curious about something. A couple days ago there was an actual discussion going on between us (the one Top was shocked at) and then it abruptly ended. I thought it was going well and there was no negativity, so why did it stop? That was when you posted that really ugly thing that you felt bad about having to say, and yet I never saw anything that triggered that particular rant. Is it possible that good discussion triggered the rant? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 15, 2013 10:24:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. c'mon, Phil.. you preach your beliefs, but won't discuss those beliefs in open, honest, direct, neutral discussions.. you can't deliver the goods, so you create the illusions.. Be well.. I'm curious about something. A couple days ago there was an actual discussion going on between us (the one Top was shocked at) and then it abruptly ended. I thought it was going well and there was no negativity, so why did it stop? That was when you posted that really ugly thing that you felt bad about having to say, and yet I never saw anything that triggered that particular rant. Is it possible that good discussion triggered the rant? It stopped when you demonstrated your hypocrisy in another thread.. if you are willing to continue, so am i.. do you recall which thread that was? i don't.. unfortunately, i'm not able to keep-up with more than a few discussions at a time.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 13:42:12 GMT -5
Thanks for that. I seem to be in a non-sitting phase these days. More into the 'every instant' brand, as I can fit it in easier  . Of course, I don't see any choice in the activity of 'fitting it in' -- I just seem to be paying attention (ATA) sometimes and not others. I might, absurd as it is, try out the effortless thing, which does sound similar to your kiki pal describes. simple is good, simple is easy  . kiki's path was TM for like a century and then a sudden realization. He's as relentless on the point of the fallacy of the person as he is gentle. He's the only voice that ever stated "what we are" instead of "what we aren't" that I didn't feel like arguing with. Sitting will happen or it won't, no big deal either way. Just remember when that voice perks up and says "yer yer brain fool" ... think of the chorus of laughter and say "oh reaalllly?". Yea I picked up recently from somewhere the utility of just disregarding all thought. Sort of like blowing bubbles and just giving them a little poke. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 15, 2013 21:28:52 GMT -5
simple is good, simple is easy . kiki's path was TM for like a century and then a sudden realization. He's as relentless on the point of the fallacy of the person as he is gentle. He's the only voice that ever stated "what we are" instead of "what we aren't" that I didn't feel like arguing with. Sitting will happen or it won't, no big deal either way. Just remember when that voice perks up and says "yer yer brain fool" ... think of the chorus of laughter and say "oh reaalllly?". Yea I picked up recently from somewhere the utility of just disregarding all thought. Sort of like blowing bubbles and just giving them a little poke. Can you describe the qualities of the experience of disregarding all thought? I'm willing to reciprocate if you want, but I'm just curious as to what this means to you and don't have any desire to expostulate. I take "disregard all thought" as a suggestion that is distinct from ATA. What I would describe wouldn't be the experience of disregarding all thought, but the experience of deliberately watching them as a practice. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 15, 2013 22:47:39 GMT -5
Yea I picked up recently from somewhere the utility of just disregarding all thought. Sort of like blowing bubbles and just giving them a little poke. Can you describe the qualities of the experience of disregarding all thought? I'm willing to reciprocate if you want, but I'm just curious as to what this means to you and don't have any desire to expostulate. I take "disregard all thought" as a suggestion that is distinct from ATA. What I would describe wouldn't be the experience of disregarding all thought, but the experience of deliberately watching them as a practice. I guess you'd want to be careful not to disregard the thought to disregard all thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2013 13:53:57 GMT -5
So here’s a puzzler that I’ve been wondering about: Take this: -- What looks through my eyes is the same as what looks through your eyes -- Call it awareness, presence -- (just pointers) -- that’s the ‘what’ in the above line. Now is this awareness 1. absolutely the same thing -- there’s one Awareness and it’s what is looking through both of our eyes. or 2. the same type of thing. Because we both have eyes, brains, etc. we have the same equipment, and awareness is the natural experience or whatever that arises as a result. It’s not the same absolute thing as in #1 because there is no connection. I’m comfortable with #2 but open to see where I’m amiss. It’s the old Agnostic in me. A person raised in a more god-fearing way may prefer #1. This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 29, 2013 21:49:39 GMT -5
So here’s a puzzler that I’ve been wondering about: Take this: -- What looks through my eyes is the same as what looks through your eyes -- Call it awareness, presence -- (just pointers) -- that’s the ‘what’ in the above line. Now is this awareness 1. absolutely the same thing -- there’s one Awareness and it’s what is looking through both of our eyes. or 2. the same type of thing. Because we both have eyes, brains, etc. we have the same equipment, and awareness is the natural experience or whatever that arises as a result. It’s not the same absolute thing as in #1 because there is no connection. I’m comfortable with #2 but open to see where I’m amiss. It’s the old Agnostic in me. A person raised in a more god-fearing way may prefer #1. This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell You keep asking the question and keep concluding it doesn't matter. Why not just go wacky and admit that it seems to matter right now? From my perspective, you're confronting the same sort of trap that Tzu and Figs have been working from in that nothing can be found but ideas, and so they are either dismissed as equal to all other ideas (Figs), or confused with direct experience and called 'what is'. The way out of that trap is tangential. That is, the whole deally has to be looked at in an entirely different way. Instead of asking, is it true that there is one awareness, and if so, do I prove it with some kind of still mind direct experience or logic, find out why the question even arises in the first place. You want to know what you are because you've always had an idea about that, and you want a new idea. That original idea was probly 'I am a person with certain qualities, a body and mind, blah, blah'. Where did that idea come from and how do you know THAT is true? If you never had that idea, would you need an awareness idea to escape it? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 29, 2013 22:16:13 GMT -5
So here’s a puzzler that I’ve been wondering about: Take this: -- What looks through my eyes is the same as what looks through your eyes -- Call it awareness, presence -- (just pointers) -- that’s the ‘what’ in the above line. Now is this awareness 1. absolutely the same thing -- there’s one Awareness and it’s what is looking through both of our eyes. or 2. the same type of thing. Because we both have eyes, brains, etc. we have the same equipment, and awareness is the natural experience or whatever that arises as a result. It’s not the same absolute thing as in #1 because there is no connection. I’m comfortable with #2 but open to see where I’m amiss. It’s the old Agnostic in me. A person raised in a more god-fearing way may prefer #1. This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. The experience makes it obvious that reality is a seamless unity and that the universe is centered at every point. That which sees is the only thing that sees because it is the only thing here. Obviously what's being pointed to is not a thing because it has no boundaries, but we can use the word "thing" to point to that thingless thing. The body retains the memory of the experience, and there is never any doubt about the unity that was experienced. It is not held as a belief in the mind because it is a direct experience, and is directly known through the body. Does it matter? Well, it eliminates the usual fear of death because it is seen that the unified field of all being is never born and never dies; it is infinite, and all life forms are simply momentary manifestations of that infiniteness. Humans do not worry about their condition before birth, and one glimpse of the infinite takes away all worry about their condition after death. It is not so much that the infinite is seen as it is an experience of being one-with the infinite or being lost in the infinite because all boundaries are absent during the experience. This kind of experience (without an experiencer) is somewhat different than realizations in which various assumptions/ideas/beliefs are seen to be false. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood, for example, is a realization rather than an experience. When it is seen that selfhood is a fictitious idea, only, what then remains? The body/mind, universe, and awareness. Life continues, but there is no longer the idea or belief that there is a separate person at the center of what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 29, 2013 22:36:34 GMT -5
Greetings..
IF it is possible to actually 'let go' of those ideas about 'oneness' and what it 'means' and whose 'tangent' is best, THEN maybe we can get back to simply living and doing what it takes to help others 'actually' escape the causes of suffering, BUT.. all of the 'minding' about oneness is its own trap, yammering away about what to believe 'about' direct experiences.. if a direct experience is 'experienced', any talk 'about' it, 'as' direct experience, is pointless.. just look at the criteria, meanings, and structures used to describe 'oneness', or.. just look, without looking 'for' someone else's descriptions of what they want you 'see'..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 29, 2013 23:32:33 GMT -5
This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. The experience makes it obvious that reality is a seamless unity and that the universe is centered at every point. That which sees is the only thing that sees because it is the only thing here. Obviously what's being pointed to is not a thing because it has no boundaries, but we can use the word "thing" to point to that thingless thing. The body retains the memory of the experience, and there is never any doubt about the unity that was experienced. It is not held as a belief in the mind because it is a direct experience, and is directly known through the body. Does it matter? Well, it eliminates the usual fear of death because it is seen that the unified field of all being is never born and never dies; it is infinite, and all life forms are simply momentary manifestations of that infiniteness. Humans do not worry about their condition before birth, and one glimpse of the infinite takes away all worry about their condition after death. It is not so much that the infinite is seen as it is an experience of being one-with the infinite or being lost in the infinite because all boundaries are absent during the experience. This kind of experience (without an experiencer) is somewhat different than realizations in which various assumptions/ideas/beliefs are seen to be false. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood, for example, is a realization rather than an experience. When it is seen that selfhood is a fictitious idea, only, what then remains? The body/mind, universe, and awareness. Life continues, but there is no longer the idea or belief that there is a separate person at the center of what's happening. A friend used to say "You're already dead." Hehe. It's kind of a different way of saying you were never born. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 2:56:48 GMT -5
IF it is possible to actually 'let go' of those ideas about 'oneness' and what it 'means' and whose 'tangent' is best, THEN maybe we can get back to simply living and doing what it takes to help others 'actually' escape the causes of suffering, BUT.. all of the 'minding' about oneness is its own trap, yammering away about what to believe 'about' direct experiences.. if a direct experience is 'experienced', any talk 'about' it, 'as' direct experience, is pointless.. just look at the criteria, meanings, and structures used to describe 'oneness', or.. just look, without looking 'for' someone else's descriptions of what they want you 'see'.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2013 2:59:27 GMT -5
Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. Yes. I'll read the rest of it, to digest an understanding of what happened. |
|
. Of course, I don't see any choice in the activity of 'fitting it in' -- I just seem to be paying attention (ATA) sometimes and not others. I might, absurd as it is, try out the effortless thing, which does sound similar to your kiki pal describes.
. kiki's path was TM for like a century and then a sudden realization. He's as relentless on the point of the fallacy of the person as he is gentle. He's the only voice that ever stated "what we are" instead of "what we aren't" that I didn't feel like arguing with. Sitting will happen or it won't, no big deal either way.