|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2011 11:37:40 GMT -5
Im not sure I understand the question, but the way I see it is that language creates the illusion of separation, when the actuality is of non-separation. So the relationship between awareness and consciousness is non-separate and the relationship between the absolute and relative is non-separate. The absolute and relative are not 'two', yet neither are they the same thing. They are 'not-two'. So sometimes it is said that awareness is prior to the object, and yet it is also not separate from the object. In the same way, although the absolute is prior to the relative, it is also not separate from the relative. Its a dichotomy that the logical mind cannot grasp, in the same way that the logical mind cannot grasp the idea of not-two. You can't grasp the idea of one?? If you could grasp the idea of one, you could see that there are no conscious co-creators. The idea of 'one' is easily grasped (and sometimes the idea of 'one' is helpful) but if we describe a non-dual relationship in terms of 'one', then we are misrepresenting the nature of the relationship, and just as importantly, the mind is able to grasp (which really is not what we want to happen). In a way, the goal here is to describe the truelessly true nature of things in such a way that is understandable yet leaves the mind with nothing to grasp onto as being true. The good news is that the truelessly true nature of things is often dichotomous by nature which means that the mind cannot actually grasp the truelessly true nature of things. An example being awareness as both prior to, yet not separate from, the object. Another example being God as both Creator and Created. The conscious (and unconscious) co-creators are actually in the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 15:33:38 GMT -5
What I see as a problem is the need to prove something about ourselves as this limits our ability to imagine in a joyful way. I see the need to defend self-images as a problem. And how do you propose we should address this problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 15:35:28 GMT -5
Yes, but what you're saying is applicable only for those who don't embrace paradox! ;D HA! Yes, they must be levelless levels.  Indeed. However, it looks like Andrew cannot see the emoticons! |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 15:37:19 GMT -5
So personally I dont see imagination as a problem, I see imagination as inevitable. Could this be related to the fact that we can't stop imagination from running wild? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2011 16:10:31 GMT -5
What I see as a problem is the need to prove something about ourselves as this limits our ability to imagine in a joyful way. I see the need to defend self-images as a problem. And how do you propose we should address this problem? The way that I would address it varies from person to person. Self-honesty is crucial though, and therefore also the willingness to be self-honest. Some people just aren't very. The network of illusions they create make it very hard for them to be self-honest. It just seems too threatening and seems like there is too much to possibly lose. What I talk about self-honesty what I really mean is taking a sincere look at the beliefs being held to be true in mind and body, and the feelings being felt about something. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2011 16:33:40 GMT -5
So personally I dont see imagination as a problem, I see imagination as inevitable. Could this be related to the fact that we can't stop imagination from running wild? I just wrote out a long answer and then hit the delete button. Simple answer instead.....imagining happens! |
|
|
|
Post by jamesr on Sept 24, 2011 16:42:21 GMT -5
-It's all about what you've been opened to, been made aware of. In high school I always felt there was a lot more than what everyone was striving for...financial security, comfort, hunkering down with someone to keep away the wolves...then I read Walden, and suddenly I knew I was on the right track. I shouted out those words from Economy, What I Lived For, practically danced down the street from my school. And although I went on to live a more vital, free life from there, I made constant compromises. I just couldn't "let go...just let go." But little by little, from books and movies, a fire would be ignited in me, and I would compromise less and less. I think so much of it is the utter realization that there are other ways to live, to know it undeniably, and then have the Courage to live it. I believe people have an intuitive insight into the value of life, some more than others, but we need to see others realizing that higher life, and see it over and over until, hopefully Courage takes you by the hand and drags you there screaming...until you come out smiling. I love this place!
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 18:36:21 GMT -5
Lots of folks talk about the temporary appearance of form as existence, but that which actually exists is more than an appearance. Existence is that which always exists, regardless of appearance, and which is the source of appearances. If something is appearing (moving, thinking, reading) it's not the appearance doing that. It has to be the source of the appearance. You can say this source is just a concept and it's really all one, but that's the point. There isn't a mind reading stuff. Fair enough if you are defining 'existence' as the source of appearances but I dont resonate with the idea that source 'does' stuff. It doesnt make much sense to me to say that 'source reads' because the reading is happening within the dream itself. And the dream is happening within the source. It makes no sense to me to assign doership to an appearance. And the dream character isn't doing anything at all. Control isn't an indicator of what is or isn't actually reading because control is an illusion regardless. It's like saying it sounds strange to say it's God who hikes out to the mirage to fill his canteen because there's no water there, so it must be the person doing it. The fact that a mirage is involved is irrelevant. In this case it was really about who the guru is talking to. Some here seem to think it's LOLable that he would be talking to the only thing that he knows exists; the only thing in the room that is actually aware, while I find it LOLable that he would be talking to something that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 18:48:15 GMT -5
I'm not really interested in what sort of distortions the followers of a teaching might apply to that teaching, and I don't see what it says about the validity of the teaching itself. What is being pointed to is the fact that what is being looked for is what is doing the looking, meaning that all practices are based in a mis-conceptualization. It doesn't mean that pursuing this misunderstanding is not useful in revealing it, nor is it an instruction to stop practicing, just a pointer to the underlying truth of the matter. Well, I think the usefulness of the teaching can be called into question if those that come to the end of the teaching...... Who are these peeps who come to the end of the teaching? Are they the same ones who read the same teachings over and over in order to continually reinforce their delusion? If so, they haven't really come to the end of the teaching. Isn't that what TP is doing? How many practices do you see him prescribing? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 18:58:54 GMT -5
Thinking doesn't happen at one level as opposed to another. Again, levels are just conceptual bifurcations. What we're talking about is what is actually reading rather than what appears to be reading. It can be useful to conceptually separate form and formlessness until we start imagining that this form concept is it's own source and actually operates independently, then we might come to believe that persons are the doers, thinkers, speakers, readers. What Im saying is the relationship between absolute and relative is non-dual The relationship between two concepts is a conceptual relationship. Love on the rocks Ain't no surprise Pour me a drink And I'll tell you some lies. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 19:04:14 GMT -5
The conscious (and unconscious) co-creators are actually in the dream. And the dream.....is within you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 19:08:19 GMT -5
What I see as a problem is the need to prove something about ourselves as this limits our ability to imagine in a joyful way. I see the need to defend self-images as a problem. And how do you propose we should address this problem? I'm all a-twitter as I readlessly read on to findlessly find the responseless response, but my guessless guess is it will be a paradox. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 20:29:21 GMT -5
I'm all a-twitter as I readlessly read on to findlessly find the responseless response, but my guessless guess is it will be a paradox. ;D If we are lucky we'll find a paradoxless paradox ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 20:38:23 GMT -5
Simple answer instead.....imagining happens! Yes, but do we have to watch it continuously? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2011 20:45:35 GMT -5
I'm all a-twitter as I readlessly read on to findlessly find the responseless response, but my guessless guess is it will be a paradox. ;D If we are lucky we'll find a paradoxless paradox ;D I almost said that, but it didn't quite resonate and multivibrate with me. |
|
