Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 15:01:36 GMT -5
Maybe ZD knows where this supposed Zen saying comes from: "Paradox and Confusion are the two fierce guardians at the gateway to the truth of who You are." There may be a third.... I honestly don't understand why peeps have such a problem with paradoxes and paradoxicalness. I don't think anybody has a problem with it. It's just one more illusion being pointed out and there's value in seeing through illusion rather than accepting it as true. There's value in removing confusion from the mind. I'm not so sure this isn't another guardian of the gate. By believing that our thoughts must be constantly edited, sorted and purified, we enter into an antagonistic relationship with our own minds, thus making ourselves miserable. When we believe that we need to be changing and rearranging, we will automatically see others as needing to be changing and rearranging also, and this naturally leads to inharmonious personal relationships. Awareness has no such rule book. It is just aware. In fact, from this perspective, the personal identity and the lack of a personal identity are not two. At what point would confusion be removed from the mind? It's ephemeral, a passing form of the infinite pure awareness who we are. Furthermore, since all points of view are made of the same exact substance, pure awareness, all points of view are equal. In other words, all emotions, thoughts and phenomena are equal: they are all just forms of pure awareness, and have the same essence and substance, no matter how their appearances might vary. Allowing awareness to do its thing is the natural state. In the natural state, will has nothing to do with resistance. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Dec 28, 2012 15:09:33 GMT -5
I must say, seeing through the apparent paradox of Existence has been one of my biggest break-throughs. I realized that we can't say that Existence is paradoxical because logic (it's inseparable opposite) doesn't really exist. Existence only seems paradoxical when we try to understand or communicate it's true nature. When attempting these things it will only ever seem paradoxical. It's un-avoidable. That doesn't mean that paradox is some intrinsic property of Existence. We can say that existence is paradoxical, because logic 'doesnt really exist' in one context, but to even speak of logic verifies its existence in another context. On the other hand, we can also say that existence isn't paradoxical. And all that is kinda....paradoxical. Yeah, but only in the mind. Not as it actually is. To speak of logic and paradox is to verify the appearance of the illusion of duality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 15:12:50 GMT -5
We can say that existence is paradoxical, because logic 'doesnt really exist' in one context, but to even speak of logic verifies its existence in another context. On the other hand, we can also say that existence isn't paradoxical. And all that is kinda....paradoxical. Yeah, but only in the mind. Not as it actually is. To speak of logic and paradox is to verify the appearance of the illusion of duality. Only in one context is it even only in the mind. When the duality is collapsed between mind and 'prior to mind', it can still be said that paradox exists (for the reason I showed). It is only in the context of 'prior to mind' that we can say there is no paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Dec 28, 2012 15:21:39 GMT -5
Yeah, but only in the mind. Not as it actually is. To speak of logic and paradox is to verify the appearance of the illusion of duality. Only in one context is it even only in the mind. When the duality is collapsed between mind and 'prior to mind', it can still be said that paradox exists (for the reason I showed). It is only in the context of 'prior to mind' that we can say there is no paradox. This issue only ever comes up when one is doing what we are doing here; trying to understand and communicate the true nature of What IS. What IS as a whole doesn't try to do that. It just is what it is. I know that doesn't explain anything, but there isn't anything to explain. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 15:27:55 GMT -5
Only in one context is it even only in the mind. When the duality is collapsed between mind and 'prior to mind', it can still be said that paradox exists (for the reason I showed). It is only in the context of 'prior to mind' that we can say there is no paradox. This issue only ever comes up when one is doing what we are doing here; trying to understand and communicate the true nature of What IS. What IS as a whole doesn't try to do that. It just is what it is. I know that doesn't explain anything, but there isn't anything to explain. Yes I agree. I'm slightly tempted to illustrate a different context for the second paragraph but...I think I will leave it be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 15:28:07 GMT -5
I must say, seeing through the apparent paradox of Existence has been one of my biggest break-throughs. I realized that we can't say that Existence is paradoxical because logic (it's inseparable opposite) doesn't really exist. Existence only seems paradoxical when we try to understand or communicate it's true nature. When attempting these things it will only ever seem paradoxical. It's un-avoidable. That doesn't mean that paradox is some intrinsic property of Existence. Yeah, we imagine a set of ideas, and then confuse ourselves when the ideas inevitably contradict with each other in some way. Ideas are designed to relate to each other, and so they usually do, but since there is no common foundation, there are many times when they bump into each other and don't fit together well in the same story line. If we actually believe in the ultimate truth of those stories then we'll be confused. The solution, of course, is not to accept the inevitability of confusion, but to see through the stories. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 15:37:31 GMT -5
I must say, seeing through the apparent paradox of Existence has been one of my biggest break-throughs. I realized that we can't say that Existence is paradoxical because logic (it's inseparable opposite) doesn't really exist. Existence only seems paradoxical when we try to understand or communicate it's true nature. When attempting these things it will only ever seem paradoxical. It's un-avoidable. That doesn't mean that paradox is some intrinsic property of Existence. Yeah, we imagine a set of ideas, and then confuse ourselves when the ideas inevitably contradict with each other in some way. Ideas are designed to relate to each other, and so they usually do, but since there is no common foundation, there are many times when they bump into each other and don't fit together well in the same story line. If we actually believe in the ultimate truth of those stories then we'll be confused. The solution, of course, is not to accept the inevitability of confusion, but to see through the stories. You assume there is an 'ultimate' and locate it. Its a humungous problem. I have no issue at all with the idea of 'ultimate', and use the idea a lot myself, but I dont assume it to be a given. I am playing with the idea. If clarity is the goal, then non-resistance to confusion, paradox, illusions, falsities is the goal because all that stuff refers to the mind (not Being). In your case it means letting go of the assumption that 'the ultimate' is a given. ''Everything is a play of ideas'' is an appropriate pointer (and it includes the idea that 'everything is a play of ideas'). ''Nothing is ultimately true'' is an inappropriate pointer because it presupposes and locates an ''ultimate''. In this presupposition/location, clarity becomes dependent on seeing through illusions, seeing the truth of stuff, and not being confused. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 15:42:29 GMT -5
Maybe ZD knows where this supposed Zen saying comes from: "Paradox and Confusion are the two fierce guardians at the gateway to the truth of who You are." There may be a third.... I don't think anybody has a problem with it. It's just one more illusion being pointed out and there's value in seeing through illusion rather than accepting it as true. There's value in removing confusion from the mind. I'm not so sure this isn't another guardian of the gate. By believing that our thoughts must be constantly edited, sorted and purified, we enter into an antagonistic relationship with our own minds, thus making ourselves miserable. When we believe that we need to be changing and rearranging, we will automatically see others as needing to be changing and rearranging also, and this naturally leads to inharmonious personal relationships. [/quote] All 'personal' relationships are prone to being inharmoious, in case you haven't noticed.  Constant editing, sorting and self antagonizing doesn't sound like a good idea, but seeing through illusion does. That's cuz awareness doesn't have a perspective. Given that, it's easy to say what awareness doesn't doesn't see from it's perspective, but it's not meaningful. The point at which mind is seen for what it is. Equal in what way? They're soitainly not equal in terms of being aligned with actuality as opposed to illusion. Not sure what that means. What resistance is there in the 'natural state'? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:01:23 GMT -5
All 'personal' relationships are prone to being inharmoious, in case you haven't noticed.  Constant editing, sorting and self antagonizing doesn't sound like a good idea, but seeing through illusion does. That's cuz awareness doesn't have a perspective. Where is the consistency in the above two quotes? Maybe I am assuming you're speaking as an awakeness, without confusion. Given that, it's easy to say what awareness doesn't see from it's perspective, but it's not meaningful. Yet, you attempted to give it meaning by writing that. I don't get it.  The point at which mind is seen for what it is. Wouldn't that come more from a personal perspective? "Allowing" has been omitted. Equal in what way? They're soitainly not equal in terms of being aligned with actuality as opposed to illusion. See above Not sure what that means. What resistance is there in the 'natural state'? Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 16:06:54 GMT -5
Yeah, we imagine a set of ideas, and then confuse ourselves when the ideas inevitably contradict with each other in some way. Ideas are designed to relate to each other, and so they usually do, but since there is no common foundation, there are many times when they bump into each other and don't fit together well in the same story line. If we actually believe in the ultimate truth of those stories then we'll be confused. The solution, of course, is not to accept the inevitability of confusion, but to see through the stories. You assume there is an 'ultimate' and locate it. Its a humungous problem. I have no issue at all with the idea of 'ultimate', and use the idea a lot myself, but I dont assume it to be a given. I am playing with the idea. Gnaw, I don't assume that. You imagine I assume that in spite of the infinite number of times I've said nothing is ultimately true. Clarity is one thing and non-resistance is another. Generally, non-resistance comes about with clarity, which is why I talk about noticing and don't talk about practicing non-resistance. TMT |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:12:21 GMT -5
You assume there is an 'ultimate' and locate it. Its a humungous problem. I have no issue at all with the idea of 'ultimate', and use the idea a lot myself, but I dont assume it to be a given. I am playing with the idea. Gnaw, I don't assume that. You imagine I assume that in spite of the infinite number of times I've said nothing is ultimately true. Clarity is one thing and non-resistance is another. Generally, non-resistance comes about with clarity, which is why I talk about noticing and don't talk about practicing non-resistance. TMT In saying that nothing is ultimately true, an 'ultimate' IS presupposed/located. You can say that the idea that nothing is ultimately true is also not ultimately true, BUT 'ultimate' is therefore still presupposed/located. Collapsing ideas does have value, it can be a useful thing to do at times, but it does require an assumption of an 'ultimate'. In order for unconditional clarity to be the case, there has to be an openness/freedom to allowing ideas to 'be' (even if they are contradictory, paradoxical or confusing). In this openness/freedom/allowance, there is no assumption of an ''ultimate'', the contradiction, paradox and confusion is allowed to be as it is, and because it is allowed, it is not actually a problem. There is no hiding from mind with all its technical flaws in this openness/allowance/freedom, but because there is no gap experienced between 'me' and 'mind', there is no issue. In one way, we become the contradiction, the paradox, the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 16:16:46 GMT -5
You assume there is an 'ultimate' and locate it. Its a humungous problem. I have no issue at all with the idea of 'ultimate', and use the idea a lot myself, but I dont assume it to be a given. I am playing with the idea. Gnaw, I don't assume that. You imagine I assume that in spite of the infinite number of times I've said nothing is ultimately true. Clarity is one thing and non-resistance is another. Generally, non-resistance comes about with clarity, which is why I talk about noticing and don't talk about practicing non-resistance. TMT Don't know what's happening to me, but I'm going to disagree that this is TMT. I think I now realize what's been A's point all along--limits are limiting (sorry if that sounds like an Andrewism). The use of 'ultimate', in the case of the phrase, 'nothing is ultimately true,' is limiting. Limiting means not allowing. If paradoxes happen, or if they're illusion; if illusions happen; if 'nothing is ultimately true'; whatever it is, attempting to define something is limiting, and limiting is a refusal to allow, a failure to let go. As we all know, Andrew is, above all things, a free soul with a free mind, and cherishes highly such freedom, and wishes it for all beings. As we've seen in an earlier post, even if he is deluded, he's willing to allow that. Heaven help me, but I really don't see anything 'wrong' with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:20:07 GMT -5
Gnaw, I don't assume that. You imagine I assume that in spite of the infinite number of times I've said nothing is ultimately true. Clarity is one thing and non-resistance is another. Generally, non-resistance comes about with clarity, which is why I talk about noticing and don't talk about practicing non-resistance. TMT Don't know what's happening to me, but I'm going to disagree that this is TMT. I think I now realize what's been A's point all along--limits are limiting (sorry if that sounds like an Andrewism). The use of 'ultimate', in the case of the phrase, 'nothing is ultimately true,' is limiting. Limiting means not allowing. If paradoxes happen, or if they're illusion; if illusions happen; if 'nothing is ultimately true'; whatever it is, attempting to define something is limiting, and limiting is a refusal to allow, a failure to let go. As we all know, Andrew is, above all things, a free soul with a free mind, and cherishes highly such freedom, and wishes it for all beings. As we've seen in an earlier post, even if he is deluded, he's willing to allow that. Heaven help me, but I really don't see anything 'wrong' with that. I have no words right now, just....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:21:06 GMT -5
Gnaw, I don't assume that. You imagine I assume that in spite of the infinite number of times I've said nothing is ultimately true. Clarity is one thing and non-resistance is another. Generally, non-resistance comes about with clarity, which is why I talk about noticing and don't talk about practicing non-resistance. TMT Don't know what's happening to me, but I'm going to disagree that this is TMT. I think I now realize what's been A's point all along--limits are limiting (sorry if that sounds like an Andrewism). The use of 'ultimate', in the case of the phrase, 'nothing is ultimately true,' is limiting. Limiting means not allowing. If paradoxes happen, or if they're illusion; if illusions happen; if 'nothing is ultimately true'; whatever it is, attempting to define something is limiting, and limiting is a refusal to allow, a failure to let go. As we all know, Andrew is, above all things, a free soul with a free mind, and cherishes highly such freedom, and wishes it for all beings. As we've seen in an earlier post, even if he is deluded, he's willing to allow that. Heaven help me, but I really don't see anything 'wrong' with that. Yes, he does wish it for all beings! Nice post, beingist. Andrew for Mahatma!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:24:31 GMT -5
Don't know what's happening to me, but I'm going to disagree that this is TMT. I think I now realize what's been A's point all along--limits are limiting (sorry if that sounds like an Andrewism). The use of 'ultimate', in the case of the phrase, 'nothing is ultimately true,' is limiting. Limiting means not allowing. If paradoxes happen, or if they're illusion; if illusions happen; if 'nothing is ultimately true'; whatever it is, attempting to define something is limiting, and limiting is a refusal to allow, a failure to let go. As we all know, Andrew is, above all things, a free soul with a free mind, and cherishes highly such freedom, and wishes it for all beings. As we've seen in an earlier post, even if he is deluded, he's willing to allow that. Heaven help me, but I really don't see anything 'wrong' with that. Yes, he does wish it for all beings! Nice post, beingist. Andrew for Mahatma!! ;D ;D A ginger bearded Mahatma. Problem is, I like curry too much to fast! |
|
