|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 17:44:17 GMT -5
No, I'm not talking about projection, which is imaginary. Even using your approach - everything influences everything (infinite connections) - we can see that a projection is an imaginary half of a 'multidirectional whole.' Well if you were not talking about projection Im not sure what you were talking about. I'm saying that you and the person you're giving advice to are not that different and separate  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 17:44:39 GMT -5
Take my Mum for example. In order to help her to create health I have to create the illusion that there is something wrong with her and that she has a problem. If I didnt do that I would have nothing to offer her at all. You're right. Sometimes people really need to get busy. Good night, Andrew! Well, its not really me that particularly needs to get busy, its more my Mum. But for as long as she needs to do that the most appropriate thing for me to do is to get busy with her. If I am at the top of a hole and she is at the bottom and she believes that she needs steps to get out, then the only thing left for me to do is join in with the building of them. In my opinion, so called miracles are undoubtably possible, but only when we are open and ready for them. Good night anyway. It is getting late here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 17:45:58 GMT -5
Well if you were not talking about projection Im not sure what you were talking about. I'm saying that you and the person you're giving advice to are not that different and separate Okay. Well I could ask you for a definition of separate, but its late so I wont. Instead I will say that I think we are both one and many, absolute and relative, unified and individual. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 17:47:57 GMT -5
You're right. Sometimes people really need to get busy. Good night, Andrew! Well, its not really me that particularly needs to get busy, its more my Mum. But for as long as she needs to do that the most appropriate thing for me to do is to get busy with her. If I am at the top of a hole and she is at the bottom and she believes that she needs steps to get out, then the only thing left for me to is join in with the building of them. In my opinion, so called miracles are undoubtably possible, but only when we are open and ready for them. Good night anyway. It is getting late here. Yes, I was talking about both you and your Mum. It's pretty late here too. Time to do some rotations! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:04:00 GMT -5
'Nothing' can't read, it can't think, it can't do anything and this concept of mine is just as valid as a concept that says that 'nothing' can 'do' all those 'concepts' that you say that it can do. Only a mind can read and only a mind can think about what it's reading. I think the difficulty here is that the conceptual split of nothingness vs mind is believed to be true rather than just a way of talking about stuff. This is what 'beyond concepts' means; that the concepts are not ultimately true. Mind is a concept that refers to a thinking process, not a thing or an entity that can think about what it is reading. It's like assigning entity status to ego, which lots of folks do, when ego is just a label for a thought structure. The only 'thing' that actually exists is existence itself, and it is not a thing, which is why we talk about it as 'nothing', though this idea isn't ultimately true either. This doesn't mean that there is a nothing apart from mind that can or can't read or respond or whatever. It's just a pointer, and it's a bit silly to say, 'Noooo, it's a concept, dammit!' Yes, it's a concept that points beyond concepts. So, if the only 'thing' that actually exists is existence, then this existence is thinking, reading, understanding, being silly, pretending to be enlightened, pretending to not be enlightened and everything else. I like the idea of the living truth, which ZD mentioned, because it points to what's going on right here and now as Nothing.....being and doing everything. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:17:23 GMT -5
In a way, it could be said that's what Tony Parsons teaches. As I say, there's a lot of resistance to the stripped down, practiceless, direct, unadorned, teachingless teaching of Truth, and of course that's where the derogatory term 'neo-advaita' comes from, and I spose Parsons is the number one target. Letting go of everything, which is what "releasing the need for understanding and knowledge" (and control) means, is something nobody wants to do and so there can be a serious backlash to this suggestion. Conversely, there are thousands of years of devoted following to teachers who have a portfolio of 112 practices, one of which will surely win you the prize. Every teaching is distorted by it's followers in some way that serves ego, so pointing to the distortions as evidence that the teaching is wrong or ineffective is misleading. The mind identified person gets very uncomfy with the reality of such teachings, and will look for any reason to dismiss it. It may FEEL like it lacks warmth or compassion or love or joy or the embracing of life or some such, but it's not hard to notice that Parsons is a very unassuming character who is always smiling and laughing and joking. It's almost like he gets the joke and he's just trying to find a way to tell it so that you get it too. I like T.P too and I dont question his enlightenment, I just dont reckon many come out of his seminar having released the need for understanding and knowledge. You've done research on this or you don't believe it's likely based on your evaluation of the teachings? Christians are constantly reading Christian books. Buddhists are constantly reading Buddhist books. Nondualists are constantly reading books on nonduality. The reason for this is not so mysterious that it requires an explanation or implies that a particular teaching can't stand on it's own merits. Why is that interesting? Is it supposed that he realized Truth prior to his realization of Truth, and therefore should have known better than to meditate or go to counseling? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:30:04 GMT -5
Individuation talks to individuation Like in 'mouth talks to ear?' Or like in 'nightly dream character talks to nightly dream character'. Them durn dream characters might be plotting against us when we're not around to hear!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:32:32 GMT -5
Like in 'mouth talks to ear?' Hmmm. Not specifically. Thing is I wouldnt particularly say that individuation talks to individuation, but it makes more sense than saying absolute talks to absolute because at least at the relative level there is both form and contrast. There aren't actually any levels, ya know. This is part of the knowledge that needs to be released. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:38:02 GMT -5
well, I guess that would need releasing too. But how do we release things? Do we open the door and kick them out, or close the door so they don't come in? That's practice number 113. Tath will post it eventually. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 19:40:00 GMT -5
I would say that talking is as real or actual as a talker though Im not particularly suggesting that the talker is the cause of the talking. So what is the talker if it's not the cause/source of talking? A betterer question is, what IS the cause/source of the talking. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 24, 2011 0:07:38 GMT -5
Like in 'mouth talks to ear?' Or like in 'nightly dream character talks to nightly dream character'. Them durn dream characters might be plotting against us when we're not around to hear! I'm not sure what concept you believe in, that makes your hearing stuff in dreams significant... In the waking state, I can have a memory of a past experience complete with audio and video. A recollection can be experienced complete with sound in this very moment. That recollection is not 'source' but the consciousness that remembers everything experienced, with breathtaking detail? So I'm not really hearing what you think your hearing...lol Peace |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 0:26:40 GMT -5
Or like in 'nightly dream character talks to nightly dream character'. Them durn dream characters might be plotting against us when we're not around to hear! I'm not sure what concept you believe in, that makes your hearing stuff in dreams significant... In the waking state, I can have a memory of a past experience complete with audio and video. A recollection can be experienced complete with sound in this very moment. That recollection is not 'source' but the consciousness that remembers everything experienced, with breathtaking detail? So I'm not really hearing what you think your hearing...lol Peace So source and consciousness are two separate thingys? Are you sure? |
|
|
|
Post by sherry on Sept 24, 2011 0:57:54 GMT -5
[quote author=enigma board
[/quote]
So source and consciousness are two separate thingys? Are you sure?[/quote]
perhaps it's an issue of semantics... ?
I think of 'consciousness' as dual by nature since there must be something to be conscious of...
BUT I understand that many use the terms synonomously
|
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 24, 2011 1:04:03 GMT -5
'Nothing' can't read, it can't think, it can't do anything and this concept of mine is just as valid as a concept that says that 'nothing' can 'do' all those 'concepts' that you say that it can do. Only a mind can read and only a mind can think about what it's reading. I think the difficulty here is that the conceptual split of nothingness vs mind is believed to be true rather than just a way of talking about stuff. This is what 'beyond concepts' means; that the concepts are not ultimately true. Mind is a concept that refers to a thinking process, not a thing or an entity that can think about what it is reading. It's like assigning entity status to ego, which lots of folks do, when ego is just a label for a thought structure. The only 'thing' that actually exists is existence itself, and it is not a thing, which is why we talk about it as 'nothing', though this idea isn't ultimately true either. This doesn't mean that there is a nothing apart from mind that can or can't read or respond or whatever. It's just a pointer, and it's a bit silly to say, 'Noooo, it's a concept, dammit!' Yes, it's a concept that points beyond concepts. So, if the only 'thing' that actually exists is existence, then this existence is thinking, reading, understanding, being silly, pretending to be enlightened, pretending to not be enlightened and everything else. I like the idea of the living truth, which ZD mentioned, because it points to what's going on right here and now as Nothing.....being and doing everything. Actually the difficulty lies in the belief, which you can't seem to detach yourself from, that there is something out there beyond concepts and the awareness. The Christians call it God and the non-dualist call’s it existence...heh ZD says to let it all go, so why can’t you let it go? Why are you trying so hard to make that concept real? I mean what is there to say about that imagined reality beyond the obvious, that there is ‘nothing’ but awareness? Those conceptual sticky’s of what the unknowable is, keep falling off, because that which is making the sticky’s is itself a manifestation that arises in the awareness and consequently isn’t real. Kind of funny, that which doesn’t exist, except as the imagination of the mind, explaining the nature of reality, and then actually believing it… Peace |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 24, 2011 1:08:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure what concept you believe in, that makes your hearing stuff in dreams significant... In the waking state, I can have a memory of a past experience complete with audio and video. A recollection can be experienced complete with sound in this very moment. That recollection is not 'source' but the consciousness that remembers everything experienced, with breathtaking detail? So I'm not really hearing what you think your hearing...lol Peace So source and consciousness are two separate thingys? Are you sure? As sure as your thinking that there is something significant to hearing stuff in dreams...  |
|
