|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 19, 2012 13:35:27 GMT -5
Thats not quite the point we've been debating. I have agreed that attraction and aversion is inherent to this reality i.e. it is consciously experienced. What I have argued is that there is the potential of other realities in which there is no conscious experience of aversion. In my opinion, this reality in which we consciously experience contrast is the exception rather than the norm. This reality has been for those who want to experience reunification or remembrance or reconnection. Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. I'd actually like to understand this, myself. Nondualism is so called, because the Truth it purports transcend duality, not adopt it's precepts. Hence, in my understanding of nondualism (or Advaitism), there IS no duality in Reality, though we may see dualist stuff play itself out on the stage of the physical universe. In any event, as time goes by, and I continue to read and consider and absorb and accept and love, dual thinking becomes less and less a thought, even, and I just don't understand how it's really even possible to 'bend reality' to our own dual designs. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2012 13:52:02 GMT -5
Thats not quite the point we've been debating. I have agreed that attraction and aversion is inherent to this reality i.e. it is consciously experienced. What I have argued is that there is the potential of other realities in which there is no conscious experience of aversion. In my opinion, this reality in which we consciously experience contrast is the exception rather than the norm. This reality has been for those who want to experience reunification or remembrance or reconnection. Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. Aside from the channeled entities there are 3 reasons. First, because of my experience of the way the reunification/reconnective process has unfolded and continues to unfold. Secondly, because I can vividly and clearly imagine it and see it and feel it. Thirdly, because logically speaking, it makes sense to me. I am judging it as better, but thats because my interest in experiencing contrast is little, and I also see that we are beings with preferences, and it makes no sense to me to prefer suffering to joy i.e. given that I do prefer I would rather consciously prefer love and joy. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2012 13:55:41 GMT -5
Thats not quite the point we've been debating. I have agreed that attraction and aversion is inherent to this reality i.e. it is consciously experienced. What I have argued is that there is the potential of other realities in which there is no conscious experience of aversion. In my opinion, this reality in which we consciously experience contrast is the exception rather than the norm. This reality has been for those who want to experience reunification or remembrance or reconnection. Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. That's a good summation, E. I, too, wonder where Andrew gets such an idea. No, wait......I think I know! LOL. Thank goodness I don't have to abide there anymore. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2012 13:59:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. I'd actually like to understand this, myself. Nondualism is so called, because the Truth it purports transcend duality, not adopt it's precepts. Hence, in my understanding of nondualism (or Advaitism), there IS no duality in Reality, though we may see dualist stuff play itself out on the stage of the physical universe. In any event, as time goes by, and I continue to read and consider and absorb and accept and love, dual thinking becomes less and less a thought, even, and I just don't understand how it's really even possible to 'bend reality' to our own dual designs. Thats correct. There is no duality in Reality, however our experience is one of dualism (i.e. we consciously experience 'this and that'. Therefore we also consciously experience preferences. Given that this is currently an unavoidable feature of our experience (and an unavoidable feature of being human ) it makes sense to me to choose wisely. Some prefer the observer position to a creative position, which I understand, though I think it is a little deluded because in order to take that position we have to pretend that we have somehow stepped outside the creation process (or have got out of the river) when actually, when we are in that position, we are still fully immersed in the creation process (and are still flowing with the river). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2012 14:00:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. That's a good summation, E. I, too, wonder where Andrew gets such an idea. No, wait......I think I know! LOL. Thank goodness I don't have to abide there anymore. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole! I guess its no surprise that I wouldnt often choose to adopt the position you adopt either. |
|
|
|
Post by gypsywind on Jan 19, 2012 14:05:16 GMT -5
reminds me of a zen story: Once upon a time in the garden of a buddhist monastry the following discussion happened... Monk #1: "Flag is flapping." Monk #2: "Wind is flapping" Enlightened Monk: "Minds are flapping" Master: "Mouths are flapping" Why is what OHC said ACTUALLY insane idiocy, and not just that in your opinion, Question? Even if 99 percent of humanity would unquestioningly agree with you, it's still just an idea based on the belief that suffering REALLY exists. As I said, it is only temporary. Eventually, there will no evidence remaining at all that it even occurred. It leaves no lasting mark on existence. Because none of that has anything to do with the starving n*gger child, nothing, not even remotely. No one is trying to minimize your precious pain in suffering, it is there, it's Okay, it's been acknowledged, now get over it. Firstly, just for the record, personally I try my best not to care, because if I really did, I fear it would finish me. It's simply too much. Secondly, thanks for being frank and letting the world see what a sick scumbag you are ("blah blah 'precious' pain... 'infinitesimal' blah blah ... blah 'get over it'). Yeah, let's talk about Question, again.   Yes, a sick scumbag that cares deeply about the world, and has the courage to experience my sadness and grief about it, no matter how painful...heh You did nothing of the sort. You just played Hollywood with yourself and got a hard-on. But thanks for calling me a coward, brah, very perceptive of you. Peace Interesting thread. To sum up: Tat tells peeps what they ought to do. Peeps have their own ideas. Tat leaves in a huff. Angela scores big with "sword and soup." E. scores with "love appears in one's absence." Andrew expands language beyond all meaning, and FJ gets left without a teacher. (sigh) Interesting thread. To sum up: Tat tells peeps what they ought to do. Peeps have their own ideas. Tat leaves in a huff. Angela scores big with "sword and soup." E. scores with "love appears in one's absence." Andrew expands language beyond all meaning, and FJ gets left without a teacher. (sigh) I think that pretty much covers it. Hehe. I practiced the breath meditation, very traditional buddhist anapanasati, and at first noticed the mind just running wild, but I thought if I can't observe what I intend to, who is the master and who is the slave? With a conviction that the mind should abide by my intention, I continually returned attention to the breath until I could retain the focus for a long period of time. I did get disappointed and frustrated at first, but soon recognized this was a habitual reactive behaviour which was detrimental to me in daily life. By simply recognizing that, it disolved quickly, for why would I retain a detrimental behaviour I had become aware of? After that I merely noticed I was distracted, and consequentially noticed the breath was there. As my mind settled on the breath, chitter chatter did become a 'radio in the backround', I just noticed it was there, but it didn't distract me anymore. The mind started to sharpen, and I could feel the air moving very distinctly, which made it much easier as I couldn't not notice such an obvious breath. I refined the thing for a few months until all I focused on was a tiny dot on the tip of my upper lip. I'd feel the air passing over it, and soon enough I could feel even the slightest movement of air there. From there it became a huge space which only contained that little dot... so I could just be in space for a while and if I returned I'd feel that dot again... That led on to weird sensations happening in the body, and could feel emotional baggage literally as physical blocks, like solid lumps in a lighter substance... and entered a purification process... and as the storms rose I now had the ability to retain focus on that breath, and had overcome my detrimental reactivity (as I earlier mentioned)... Yea... The breath is the begining of the inquiry... and it leads to deeper places of inquiry. Or we could equally say noticing is the beginning of the inquiry. I agree, and would like to elaborate including the other posts contexts. The moment of noticing this breath, just what it feels like, even the mention of it brings it imediatly to attention, and that immediate attention is where it's at. It's not an effort of concentration, it's like I mention breath, you notice it. Insight isn't something spectacular, necessarily, I had insight the first time I observed breath... I realized my mind was a fleeting bag of distractions... so there's an insight... soon I realized my frustration disappointment, negative failure attitude were detrimental in my life... more insight... and so on. Insight comes automatically when one drops the volition and enters the choiceless observation. Trying to find a woo woo which isn't there is impossible, and if one uses the volition he'll find what he imagines to be, but miss the truth. Meditation, no volition... choiceless observation. Intent upon the breath is not a volition. Just noticing does not change it... it's like watching a river flow by. "Awareness is observation without choice, condemnation, or justification. Awareness is silent observation from which there arises understanding without the experiencer and the experienced. In this awareness, which is passive, the problem or the cause is given an opportunity to unfold itself and so give its full significance. In awareness there is no end in view to be gained, and there is no becoming, the 'me' and the 'mine' not being given the continuity. To understand what this self-centred activity is, one must obviously examine it, look at it, be aware of the entire process. If one can be aware of it, then there is the possibility of its dissolution; but to be aware of it requires a certain understanding, a certain intention to face the thing as it is and not to interpret, not to modify, not to condemn it." Krishnamurti. Good stuff.  Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. That's a good summation, E. I, too, wonder where Andrew gets such an idea. No, wait......I think I know! LOL. Thank goodness I don't have to abide there anymore. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole! Well, actually, zd, I sense you and enigma abide there more often than you're willing to admit.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 19, 2012 14:08:57 GMT -5
I'd actually like to understand this, myself. Nondualism is so called, because the Truth it purports transcend duality, not adopt it's precepts. Hence, in my understanding of nondualism (or Advaitism), there IS no duality in Reality, though we may see dualist stuff play itself out on the stage of the physical universe. In any event, as time goes by, and I continue to read and consider and absorb and accept and love, dual thinking becomes less and less a thought, even, and I just don't understand how it's really even possible to 'bend reality' to our own dual designs. Thats correct. There is no duality in Reality, however our experience is one of dualistic (i.e. we consciously experience 'this and that'. Therefore we also consciously experience preferences. But, aren't these preferences and experiences entirely subjective? Isn't it so that one must infer good/bad on subjective experience? Moreover, how do you avoid conflict between subjective experiences? Okay, well, you lose me completely with this one (but don't feel bad, E. loses me too, sometimes  ) I think what trips me up first, here, is "choosing wisely" a subjective preference or experience.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 19, 2012 14:18:02 GMT -5
Thats correct. There is no duality in Reality, however our experience is one of dualistic (i.e. we consciously experience 'this and that'. Therefore we also consciously experience preferences. But, aren't these preferences and experiences entirely subjective? Isn't it so that one must infer good/bad on subjective experience? Moreover, how do you avoid conflict between subjective experiences? Okay, well, you lose me completely with this one (but don't feel bad, E. loses me too, sometimes ) I think what trips me up first, here, is "choosing wisely" a subjective preference or experience. We do infer good/bad, positive/negative, better/worse and yes, it is subjective , however I would say that there are certain things that are pretty universal to the human experience. For example, looking at a photo of an emaciated child isnt really going to trigger a celebratory reaction. Or stubbing our toe doesnt feel good. I tend to avoid experiencing much conflict because I am pretty clear about my values and embody those values. However, its a process and there are times when my values come into conflict. Choosing wisely is basically just acknowledging that choices are made and preferences happen. Given that they happen, it makes sense to me to prefer joy to suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 19, 2012 14:18:11 GMT -5
Soup-o-stillness is it!Lots of things really happen here if only each could be open and honest. Whilst you feel each-other out, you become aware of your own ulterior motives right, that is if youre not revelling in blissfullness. Yes, I resonate and vibrate with that. I would say what one gets out of it depends on what one brings to it. I think it was a stroke of genius for Question to post beautiful pictures followed by one of ugliness, though I don't really know what his thinking was. It very graphically made a point I've been trying to make to Andrew for some time about the two ends of the duality stick that are unavoidable, and what followed was various attempts by folks to turn the ugly side of the stick into something beautiful, which involved some more ugliness, which could potentially be seen as the origin of such things as war and starving children. All the soap opera dramas here have a point and have played out perfectly because they can't play out any other way. I think Question was trying to spark a fire, I don't think however he intended to burn the house down. For me, it was suffering while looking at one end of the stick, having it shift to the other end, where I saw LOVE of a mother. And then realizing that the only thing real in all of that, was that which was holding the stick. |
|
|
|
Post by angela on Jan 19, 2012 14:24:05 GMT -5
i thought this was going to be a thread about killing the sacred cows. but alas, the vegetarians have been at it again.  |
|
|
|
Post by gypsywind on Jan 19, 2012 14:38:36 GMT -5
I think squash is poorly named. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 19, 2012 14:58:49 GMT -5
I think squash is poorly named. Me, too. I'd much rather it just be called racquetball. |
|
|
|
Post by gypsywind on Jan 19, 2012 15:02:51 GMT -5
I think squash is poorly named. Me, too. I'd much rather it just be called racquetball. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2012 15:28:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I know it's more complicated than I implied in that, and I didn't mean to suggest that the 'graphic demonstration' was going to impress you particularly. You have an idea about a non-dual dualistic experiential reality that is better than this one rather than worse and is all good and no bad. I have no idea what makes you think that's possible beyond some channeled entities who have told you it is. That's a good summation, E. I, too, wonder where Andrew gets such an idea. No, wait......I think I know! LOL. Thank goodness I don't have to abide there anymore. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole! We've actually got a pretty cool theme going on here now. While Andrew is looking for a one-ended stick, others are trying to bend the stick over to make the ends join without breaking it in two. What other fun methods can we come up with to morph our distorted experience of THIS into THAT? |
|
|
|
Post by gypsywind on Jan 19, 2012 15:32:34 GMT -5
That's a good summation, E. I, too, wonder where Andrew gets such an idea. No, wait......I think I know! LOL. Thank goodness I don't have to abide there anymore. I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole! We've actually got a pretty cool theme going on here now. While Andrew is looking for a one-ended stick, others are trying to bend the stick over to make the ends join without breaking it in two. What other fun methods can we come up with to morph our distorted experience of THIS into THAT? Yeah! When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture!! ;D |
|
)
