Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:28:03 GMT -5
Thinking there is a contradiction here is part of the confusion. Please explain. I sense myself wandering into a beartrap with very large sharp teeth. I'll try to step carefully...  If straightforward and coherent definitions cannot be made, it means there is no basis for any 'teaching', it is fake and is used to fool out people. Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. Assumption: there is a "teaching" Conclusion: since no straightforward and coherent definitions are being used for this 'teaching,' deception or trickery must be present. The confusion is because there is no "teaching." In fact there is no foundation whatsoever for what is being discussed because what is being discussed is purely conceptual and what is being referred to contains what is conceptual. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 8:28:04 GMT -5
Then you simply cannot say anything about it. Oops. So?? That's why this place is filled with pointers. Even the most non-metaphorical languagically precise elegant prose is just a pointer. So, the pointers cannot be used to speak about the teaching. Terms and definitions are invented for that. Otherwise you'll be pointing , making helpless jestures,- and nobody will understand anything. This is what is going on here. Questions cannot be answered coherently. People do not understand what you want to say with your pointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:28:39 GMT -5
Thought is never accepted, only briefly entertained. Though, 'briefly' varies widely across the board. "Is a week a long time?", my son asked. "Well that depends", I said. "If you've been told that's all you've got left to live then no, it's not. But if you're trying to hold your breath, then yes, it's a long time." What if we're trying to hold a single thought in front of 'our attention.' How long can we do it? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:29:37 GMT -5
The only basis is the 'real you.' And a 'real you' has been reified. Care to provide a crown? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:35:55 GMT -5
What is the 'real you'? How to use it as a basis for a teaching? Are you sure you know WHAT your 'real you' is? You can't use it. You can't know it. You can only be 'it.' And an 'it' has now been reified. To be fair, I understand that pointing to an 'it' of some kind can be a good thing to do sometimes, even though it is a deluded thing to do. If the pointerer is not comfortable with the delusion of that action, then something aint right. It took me a while to get comfortable with being confused and deluded! I had to be willing to become a fool first. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 8:37:16 GMT -5
If it were like you are saying we would not be able to communicate and understand each other. It sometimes really happens. But now we are speaking not about ordinary and commonplace things. We are speaking about a spiritual teaching which needs to be clarified and be understandable for everybody. In this case terms and definitions are used which are not allowed to be ambiguous. Can you give an example of something that never changes? That would be the un-ambiguous definition you're looking for. The example of something cannot be a definition. Some-thing is a thing. A thing cannot be a definition. Can you understand that? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:37:29 GMT -5
I mean, isn't this entire discussion crazy? In no walk of life would you not get laughed at if when pressured you will seriously argue that you won't explain yourself because definitions are by definition arbitrary. We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:39:18 GMT -5
You can't use it. You can't know it. You can only be 'it.' And an 'it' has now been reified. To be fair, I understand that pointing to an 'it' of some kind can be a good thing to do sometimes, even though it is a deluded thing to do. If the pointerer is not comfortable with the delusion of that action, then something aint right. It took me a while to get comfortable with being confused and deluded! I had to be willing to become a fool first. Now you have to provide one more crown. Keep them coming! |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:40:25 GMT -5
Can you give an example of something that never changes? That would be the un-ambiguous definition you're looking for. The example of something cannot be a definition. Some-thing is a thing. A thing cannot be a definition. Can you understand that? First find something that never changes. And then we find an unambiguous definition. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:40:44 GMT -5
I mean, isn't this entire discussion crazy? In no walk of life would you not get laughed at if when pressured you will seriously argue that you won't explain yourself because definitions are by definition arbitrary. We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. There aint no thing to be exposed. And yet here we are talking as if there is. Its madness. But kinda fun. Never trust a pointerer who isnt happy to admit their delusion in pointing. Never trust a pointerer that thinks they've got it all sewn up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:41:36 GMT -5
And an 'it' has now been reified. To be fair, I understand that pointing to an 'it' of some kind can be a good thing to do sometimes, even though it is a deluded thing to do. If the pointerer is not comfortable with the delusion of that action, then something aint right. It took me a while to get comfortable with being confused and deluded! I had to be willing to become a fool first. Now you have to provide one more crown. Keep them coming! A crown? What do you mean a crown? Can I have a definition please hehe? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 8:43:51 GMT -5
Oops. So?? That's why this place is filled with pointers. Even the most non-metaphorical languagically precise elegant prose is just a pointer. So, the pointers cannot be used to speak about the teaching. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Pointers are used because there is no other thing which can direct someone's attention at what is being spoken about. The definitions themselves are pointers. yes. And sometimes just metaphors or whatever. Some pointers are better than others. In my experience, good pointers can be read again and again. Also from personal experience, questions are not always coherent to begin with and answers don't always get read coherently. Coherence is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes. Are you saying "People" to refer to arisha or are you using "People" to refer to a bunch of posters you have surveyed or are you using "People" to refer to a group of readers that are imagined? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Mar 27, 2012 8:46:52 GMT -5
Assumption: there is a "teaching" But of course there is a teaching! No, the conclusion is this: since, when inquired about the validity of the teaching the teacher will only give a very complicated and long-winded answer which amounts to 'I ain't got no proof of any kind' then we have every right to be concerned about the validity of not only the teaching by also the teacher. And we can speculate about the motives of this teacher. Usually they are financial, in this case they seem to be psychological. No, what is being referred to is also conceptual. Oneness is purely conceptual. edit: I'm sorry but I'll quit the discussion at this point. This is gonna turn out to be a long thread and I have restrain myself because I have a lot of work to do. If you want to learn about why pointers don't work then listen to Andrew, he understands the issue perfectly. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 8:47:37 GMT -5
We can explain all we want. It's just never going to expose what we are all actually looking for. There aint no thing to be exposed. And yet here we are talking as if there is. Its madness. But kinda fun. Never trust a pointerer who isnt happy to admit their delusion in pointing. Never trust a pointerer that thinks they've got it all sewn up. We are exposing our cluelessness while trying to expose our "real nature." |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 8:50:57 GMT -5
So, the pointers cannot be used to speak about the teaching. I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Pointers are used because there is no other thing which can direct someone's attention at what is being spoken about. The definitions themselves are pointers. ? The whole problem is that attention does get constantly directed at what is being spoken about. |
|
