|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 25, 2011 12:52:40 GMT -5
This is why I think non-dualist teachers and manifestation teachers (such as Abraham-Hicks) are pointing to the same thing. They are just speaking from different sides of the coin. If this were really the case, would you speak from the side facing the sky, or from the side facing the soil? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2011 12:52:48 GMT -5
Andrew wrote, "Sometimes the way you write makes it sound to me as if you think you are source/formlessness itself..."
Sorry for buttin' in, but no, E. doesn't think that; he has concretely realized what he is. He knows that what he is is THIS. THIS is not a human being although it can be imagined to manifest as human beings. THIS is infinite and changeless. Go look in a mirror. What you will see is what E. is. Go outside and pick up a rock. That's E. too. E. is much vaster than you realize. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 12:58:03 GMT -5
This is why I think non-dualist teachers and manifestation teachers (such as Abraham-Hicks) are pointing to the same thing. They are just speaking from different sides of the coin. If this were really the case, would you speak from the side facing the sky, or from the side facing the soil? I speak from which ever side I feel is most appropriate in each moment. It all depends. And sometimes I just try to illustrate that there are two sides. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 13:01:40 GMT -5
Andrew wrote, "Sometimes the way you write makes it sound to me as if you think you are source/formlessness itself..." Sorry for buttin' in, but no, E. doesn't think that; he has concretely realized what he is. He knows that what he is is THIS. THIS is not a human being although it can be imagined to manifest as human beings. THIS is infinite and changeless. Go look in a mirror. What you will see is what E. is. Go outside and pick up a rock. That's E. too. E. is much vaster than you realize. LOL I see things a little different. At a fundamental level I would say that E is the rock (or is the same as the rock). At a non-fundamental level I would say that E is different to the rock. If there wasnt some kind of difference there would be no discussion about this. From my perspective I would say that This is both infinite and finite and changeless and changing. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 25, 2011 16:16:59 GMT -5
Andrew wrote, "Sometimes the way you write makes it sound to me as if you think you are source/formlessness itself..." Sorry for buttin' in, but no, E. doesn't think that; he has concretely realized what he is. He knows that what he is is THIS. THIS is not a human being although it can be imagined to manifest as human beings. THIS is infinite and changeless. Go look in a mirror. What you will see is what E. is. Go outside and pick up a rock. That's E. too. E. is much vaster than you realize. LOL I see things a little different. At a fundamental level I would say that E is the rock (or is the same as the rock). At a non-fundamental level I would say that E is different to the rock. If there wasnt some kind of difference there would be no discussion about this. From my perspective I would say that This is both infinite and finite and changeless and changing. Yes, I agree as well... I have to wonder what is the direct awareness of THIS? Does the awareness perceive THIS as itself? Or is it aware of the "thought" that it is THIS? And if that "thought" doesn't arise in the awareness, , then what? When you directly perceive a tree are you not aware of the form, made up of light, shadow, color, smell and shape? Or are you aware of the "thought" of form, the "thought" of light, shadows and color, and the "thought" of what you smell? If there is no "thought" associated with what is perceived, are you perceiving something or not? Can you be aware of knee pain, if there is no "thought" about what a knee is or what pain is? And if there is something there to be aware of without "thought", wouldn't it have to be the "direct experience" of THIS? THIS must be pure awareness, aware of nothing, but even this statement is false...heh Peace |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 25, 2011 17:48:45 GMT -5
I see things a little different. At a fundamental level I would say that E is the rock (or is the same as the rock). At a non-fundamental level I would say that E is different to the rock. If there wasnt some kind of difference there would be no discussion about this. From my perspective I would say that This is both infinite and finite and changeless and changing. Yes, I agree as well... I have to wonder what is the direct awareness of THIS? Does the awareness perceive THIS as itself? Or is it aware of the "thought" that it is THIS? And if that "thought" doesn't arise in the awareness, , then what? When you directly perceive a tree are you not aware of the form, made up of light, shadow, color, smell and shape? Or are you aware of the "thought" of form, the "thought" of light, shadows and color, and the "thought" of what you smell? If there is no "thought" associated with what is perceived, are you perceiving something or not? Can you be aware of knee pain, if there is no "thought" about what a knee is or what pain is? And if there is something there to be aware of without "thought", wouldn't it have to be the "direct experience" of THIS? THIS must be pure awareness, aware of nothing, but even this statement is false...heh Peace trf, I speak for myself, only. THIS IS THIS, THIS IS NOT EVEN AWARE OF THIS. There is no direst awareness of THIS. There never was nor ever has been. Those who say have not. Awareness does not perceive THIS as itself, otherwise there would be a distinction between awareness and THIS. The first distinction. Awareness is awareness of the thought of THIS, but it is only a thought of THIS; and therefore never THIS. When you directly perceive a tree you are aware of form, light, shadow, color, smell and shape. When you are aware of thought you are aware of thought and the contents of that thought-only which has nothing to do with direct perception of 'tree'. If there is no thought you are just perceiving without context. Yes, there is awareness of all pain without thought, expressed through the body as awareness. Awareness is awareness but has no direct experience of THIS. THIS is always prior to. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2011 18:22:27 GMT -5
Klaus,
"prior to" is a logical construct. If you're not aware of 'this' and never have been and never will be, then how can you say that there even is a 'this'? Is there a possibility that your (non)definition of 'this', or your assertion that there must be a 'this', is merely a product of your thinking, albeit too subtle to be recognized as such? What if awareness is just awareness, it appears and disappears and there is nothing and nobody to watch it come and go.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 25, 2011 18:31:26 GMT -5
Klaus, "prior to" is a logical construct. If you're not aware of 'this' and never have been and never will be, then how can you say that there even is a 'this'? Is there a possibility that your (non)definition of 'this', or your assertion that there must be a 'this', is merely a product of your thinking, albeit too subtle to be recognized as such? What if awareness is just awareness, it appears and disappears and there is nothing and nobody to watch it come and go. question, There will never be an answer to any of your questions. Can you live with that? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2011 18:48:54 GMT -5
question, There will never be an answer to any of your questions. Can you live with that? Yes I can. Those aren't my questions. I don't think in terms of awareness, being, consciousness, it, this or that or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 19:24:56 GMT -5
This is why I think non-dualist teachers and manifestation teachers (such as Abraham-Hicks) are pointing to the same thing. They are just speaking from different sides of the coin. If this were really the case, would you speak from the side facing the sky, or from the side facing the soil? He would speak from the sideless side as he creatlessly creates. Lately, I'm thinkin what Andrew gets out of his paradox game is the ability to never be wrong. The thing I've always said about Andrew is that he's not wrong. He can't be wrong if he always has one foot on each side of every fence.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 19:30:41 GMT -5
From my perspective I would say that This is both infinite and finite and changeless and changing. That's a perspectiveless perspective. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 25, 2011 20:18:12 GMT -5
question, There will never be an answer to any of your questions. Can you live with that? Yes I can. Those aren't my questions. I don't think in terms of awareness, being, consciousness, it, this or that or the other. Others have tried to answer this same question for you again and again and yet you still ask it. Then whatever terms you think in be happy with that and enjoy life. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 25, 2011 20:34:23 GMT -5
He would speak from the sideless side as he creatlessly creates. Lately, I'm thinkin what Andrew gets out of his paradox game is the ability to never be wrong. The thing I've always said about Andrew is that he's not wrong. He can't be wrong if he always has one foot on each side of every fence. Indeed. Excellent observation. To Andrew's defense, he apparently doesn't know if he's right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 21:23:49 GMT -5
He would speak from the sideless side as he creatlessly creates. Lately, I'm thinkin what Andrew gets out of his paradox game is the ability to never be wrong. The thing I've always said about Andrew is that he's not wrong. He can't be wrong if he always has one foot on each side of every fence. Indeed. Excellent observation. To Andrew's defense, he apparently doesn't know if he's right or wrong. Well that's because he's both and neither.....and not even that!  |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2011 21:44:08 GMT -5
Yes I can. Those aren't my questions. I don't think in terms of awareness, being, consciousness, it, this or that or the other. Others have tried to answer this same question for you again and again and yet you still ask it. Then whatever terms you think in be happy with that and enjoy life. The terms I think in in real life are practical/functional throughout. Nondual folks claim that enlightenment is the most important thing. Any idiot can make extraordinary claims, but what makes nondual folks stand out from the herd is that they are too coherent and intelligent for their claims to likely be products of a delusion. So after assessing the situation I can't help but give them a chance; return on investment seems too high to be ignored. Unfortunately I can't figure out how to make their message functional, so I hope that I've misunderstood something. So I ask again from a different angle each time. Some people have trouble believing it, but I really don't have a clue how to make nonduality practical/functional in actual life (and not just as a somewhat coherent idea). It's strange though, how you first write a flowery description of 'this', then claim that questions about it can't be answered, and then make me defend my own questioning. |
|
