|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 9:42:49 GMT -5
Believing in the existence of something that doesnt exist. Trying to perceive or attend to something that doesnt exist. Okay. I don't have a problem with that. First there is a mountain. Umm, but actually the mountain isn't there. <pointer alert!> Then, after lots of seeking, maybe, there is no mountain. Wow, cool. Finally, mountain. I love flirting with danger. I dont have a problem with that either  ''I love flirting with danger''. Reminds me of Point Break....''Are you guys gonna jump or jerk off?''. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 9:47:11 GMT -5
But you've just said 'the real you' can be the basis for the teaching! If I can only 'be it' what the basis of the teaching has to do with it?? Yes, I can only be it. Then again there is no basis for the teaching?! What is the teaching based on? On the absence of ideas about it? on the absence of definitions regarding what its core is? Then what is it used for if it is deliberately fake? To make a fool, an idiot of me? Arisha: until you find a thing that doesn't change, none of this will make any sense. Oh no. It doesn't mean that if you say like that. You want to base the theory on something that doesn't exist, and you want me to look it for you. It is simply unfair. The teaching should be based on definitions. Only the teaching about God is not supposed to be based on the definition of what God is because God cannot be defined. Nothing else can fall under the same category as God. If Oneness cannot be defined it means there is no difference between Oneness and God. It means that in the teaching about Oneness the word Oneness is used instead of the word God. Then why to use one word instead of the other? Something dishonest again. People are fooled. Simple like that. There is God. That's it. Oneness=God. NOTHING NEW PRETENDING BEING SOMETHING. So, they named the old teaching with a new name and sold it to you. And you bought this rotten stuff. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 9:49:19 GMT -5
Arisha: until you find a thing that doesn't change, none of this will make any sense. Oh no. It doesn't mean that if you say like that. You want to base the theory on something that doesn't exist, and you want me to look it for you. It is simply unfair. The teaching should be based on definitions. Only the teaching about God is not supposed to be based on the definition of what God is because God cannot be defined. Nothing else can fall under the same category. If Oneness cannot be defined it means there is no difference between Oneness and God. It means that in the teaching about Oneness the word Oneness is used instead of the word God. Then why to use one word instead of the other? Something dishonest again. People are fooled. Simple like that. There is God. That's it. Oneness=God. NOTHING NEW PRETENDING BEING SOMETHING. So, they named the old teaching with a new name and sold it to you. And you bought this rotten stuff. Personally, God gives me the willies. Oneness, less so. But whatever, I'm agnostic to both. Your revelation that Oneness=God is nothing new or hidden here. You know that right? |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 9:56:16 GMT -5
Oh no. It doesn't mean that if you say like that. You want to base the theory on something that doesn't exist, and you want me to look it for you. It is simply unfair. The teaching should be based on definitions. Only the teaching about God is not supposed to be based on the definition of what God is because God cannot be defined. Nothing else can fall under the same category. If Oneness cannot be defined it means there is no difference between Oneness and God. It means that in the teaching about Oneness the word Oneness is used instead of the word God. Then why to use one word instead of the other? Something dishonest again. People are fooled. Simple like that. There is God. That's it. Oneness=God. NOTHING NEW PRETENDING BEING SOMETHING. So, they named the old teaching with a new name and sold it to you. And you bought this rotten stuff. Personally, God gives me the willies. Oneness, less so. But whatever, I'm agnostic to both. Your revelation that Oneness=God is nothing new or hidden here. You know that right? So, you prefer to substitute the word, and deceive yourself, because you feel more comfortable. OK. As for me, I prefer not to deceive myself. No difference. No, I didn't see it discussed here. I don't read all posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 10:09:07 GMT -5
Personally, God gives me the willies. Oneness, less so. But whatever, I'm agnostic to both. Your revelation that Oneness=God is nothing new or hidden here. You know that right? So, you prefer to substitute the word, and deceive yourself, because you feel more comfortable. OK. huh? how am i deceiving myself? If oneness=god why can't they be used interchangeably? If there's no difference, how would using it decieve yourself? No comprendo. There's been ton's of good stuff -- ZD is constantly referring to the Book of Thomas, as are others. Methinks the term "God" has lots of extravagant trappings that don't have anything to do with what it points to. And yes, same goes for "Oneness." When I say that God gives me the willies, I'm referring to my reaction to all those extravagant trappings (e.g. big hairy guy sitting on a cloud, etc). For me, maybe because Oneness is not as well-trod, there is less of a reaction because I don't have a whole lot of extra baggage with the term. But it doesn't matter. Pick your poison. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 10:21:23 GMT -5
I love flirting with danger. I dont have a problem with that either ''I love flirting with danger''. Reminds me of Point Break....''Are you guys gonna jump or jerk off?''. Hehe Great movie. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Mar 27, 2012 10:27:21 GMT -5
So, you prefer to substitute the word, and deceive yourself, because you feel more comfortable. OK. huh? how am i deceiving myself? If oneness=god why can't they be used interchangeably? If there's no difference, how would using it decieve yourself? No comprendo. There's been ton's of good stuff -- ZD is constantly referring to the Book of Thomas, as are others. Methinks the term "God" has lots of extravagant trappings that don't have anything to do with what it points to. And yes, same goes for "Oneness." When I say that God gives me the willies, I'm referring to my reaction to all those extravagant trappings (e.g. big hairy guy sitting on a cloud, etc). For me, maybe because Oneness is not as well-trod, there is less of a reaction because I don't have a whole lot of extra baggage with the term. But it doesn't matter. Pick your poison. I said 'no difference' because God doesn't cause me to have willies more than Oneness. Both cause willies,- then what is the difference which word to use? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 11:05:56 GMT -5
huh? how am i deceiving myself? If oneness=god why can't they be used interchangeably? If there's no difference, how would using it decieve yourself? No comprendo. There's been ton's of good stuff -- ZD is constantly referring to the Book of Thomas, as are others. Methinks the term "God" has lots of extravagant trappings that don't have anything to do with what it points to. And yes, same goes for "Oneness." When I say that God gives me the willies, I'm referring to my reaction to all those extravagant trappings (e.g. big hairy guy sitting on a cloud, etc). For me, maybe because Oneness is not as well-trod, there is less of a reaction because I don't have a whole lot of extra baggage with the term. But it doesn't matter. Pick your poison. I said 'no difference' because God doesn't cause me to have willies more than Oneness. Both cause willies,- then what is the difference which word to use? None to you. None to me. We agree! It's just a preference, methinks. Vanilla rather than chocolate. However, apparently you think when I use Oneness and not God I am deceiving myself, which is why you don't use it. That's what I found hard to understand. To me, the interesting part of the conversation is when you charged that I was deceiving myself. Being alerted to self-deception is something I always welcome. Please explain how using Oneness and not God when both are equivalent is an example of self-deception. Another thing you may have missed on this forum is that the term 'projection' is used a lot. It is not necessarily used as only a pejorative term when used as a comment on someone else's post. Since many of us here are in the process of uncovering egoic phenomena, a charge of projection can be very helpful. Some sort of unconscious repeating pattern may be 'projected' right here in text. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 11:22:30 GMT -5
Are you trying to say that everything is a dream? Well.....no, because then I am reifying a dreamer. The idea of a dreamer and a dream, or of formless and form CAN be useful for those that believe in an objective reality in which things are believed to exist separately and distinctly. However, beyond that, those dualities are no use, and actually can be a problem. Its an artificial but helpful duality that pointerers set up, a fairy tale that we tell to get people off the starting blocks, thats all. What happens though is that peeps reify formlessness/the dreamer. And that is what is happening sometimes on the forum. No-one on this forum believes in an objective reality in which things exist separately and distinctly. However, I would say there are some who are attached to the duality of formlessness/form and are reifying formlessness (or whatever term is fashionable). There is no formlessness, no dreamer, no 'it' because if it cant be perceived, or attended to, then it doesnt exist. We may speak of a dreamer/formlessness sometimes, and we may point to one, but its a deluded thing to do. If we are at peace with that delusion, no problem. But I think some peeps point thinking that there really IS something to point to, and of course they deny the delusion in doing so because they dont want to see themselves as deluded. There aint nothing wrong with being deluded, and actually I would say its inevitable. Is it OK if I point to Abraham instead? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Mar 27, 2012 11:29:11 GMT -5
Arisha: until you find a thing that doesn't change, none of this will make any sense. Oh no. It doesn't mean that if you say like that. You want to base the theory on something that doesn't exist, and you want me to look it for you. It is simply unfair. The teaching should be based on definitions. Only the teaching about God is not supposed to be based on the definition of what God is because God cannot be defined. Nothing else can fall under the same category as God. If Oneness cannot be defined it means there is no difference between Oneness and God. It means that in the teaching about Oneness the word Oneness is used instead of the word God. Then why to use one word instead of the other? Something dishonest again. People are fooled. Simple like that. There is God. That's it. Oneness=God. NOTHING NEW PRETENDING BEING SOMETHING. So, they named the old teaching with a new name and sold it to you. And you bought this rotten stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 27, 2012 11:35:55 GMT -5
Well.....no, because then I am reifying a dreamer. The idea of a dreamer and a dream, or of formless and form CAN be useful for those that believe in an objective reality in which things are believed to exist separately and distinctly. However, beyond that, those dualities are no use, and actually can be a problem. Its an artificial but helpful duality that pointerers set up, a fairy tale that we tell to get people off the starting blocks, thats all. What happens though is that peeps reify formlessness/the dreamer. And that is what is happening sometimes on the forum. No-one on this forum believes in an objective reality in which things exist separately and distinctly. However, I would say there are some who are attached to the duality of formlessness/form and are reifying formlessness (or whatever term is fashionable). There is no formlessness, no dreamer, no 'it' because if it cant be perceived, or attended to, then it doesnt exist. We may speak of a dreamer/formlessness sometimes, and we may point to one, but its a deluded thing to do. If we are at peace with that delusion, no problem. But I think some peeps point thinking that there really IS something to point to, and of course they deny the delusion in doing so because they dont want to see themselves as deluded. There aint nothing wrong with being deluded, and actually I would say its inevitable. Is it OK if I point to Abraham instead? Haha its hard to see that happening. The Abraham body of work comes with its own issues of course, but I think it can be a useful step when we are stuck in a pattern of reification. Its kind of like when we go from snowplough to parallel skiing. We have to let go of what we have learned in order to progress, which seems kind of a crazy thing to do when we have learned how to turn and stop using the snowplough. In a way, parallel skiing seems contrary to what we have learned already. As it is with Abraham. We have to turn our back on no person and no self and basically start embracing individuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 27, 2012 12:06:34 GMT -5
Oneness, God, THIS, The All, Awareness, Whatever.
As ZD would likely confirm, they're all just pointers - words used to define/describe fingers clacking away on a keyboard, listening to ice drop into a cup at McDonald's.
|
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Mar 27, 2012 12:32:20 GMT -5
It has already been discussed here, though, that experiences are just mind states... What I am saying is not about experiences, but about the teaching. Oneness has nothing to do with these experiences. It has been discussed here, therefore it's true. Is that what you're saying? Has it now become a dogma to you? Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 12:35:49 GMT -5
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. It means empirical evidence is without foundation. It doesn't mean there is no basis for anything discussed here. And you need to have 'realizing oneness' coherently defined for you? Are you serial? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 27, 2012 12:37:58 GMT -5
Yeah, Enigma has even admitted this. In our empiricism discussion he stated that whatever he is claiming is without any foundation whatsoever. Thinking there is a contradiction here is part of the confusion. Yes, that's how discussion goes with Arisha. As for Q, maybe he's playing dumb today, but I guess I'll find out in the next 4 pages. |
|
