Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:27:33 GMT -5
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! I love making you laugh, dude! |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 16:28:41 GMT -5
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! Curry. Yuck. Otherwise, Mahatma is a brand of rice we buy out here, so I don't think use of the term in the case of A is very flattering.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:29:50 GMT -5
;D A ginger bearded Mahatma. Problem is, I like curry too much to fast! I love making you laugh, dude! You do a great job of it |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 16:31:48 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 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. Allowing is, of course, a good thing, but it's not enough to allow illusion cuz illusion remains. For example, learning how to allow your self image to be attacked is fine, but better to see through the illusion of self image. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:35:36 GMT -5
;D A ginger bearded Mahatma. Problem is, I like curry too much to fast! Curry. Yuck. Otherwise, Mahatma is a brand of rice we buy out here, so I don't think use of the term in the case of A is very flattering. We have Mahatma rice on the grocer's shelves here, too. He's everywhere!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 16:35:41 GMT -5
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. Allowing is, of course, a good thing, but it's not enough to allow illusion cuz illusion remains. For example, learning how to allow your self image to be attacked is fine, but better to see through the illusion of self image. Won't the 'illusion' of self image be revealed as 'illusion' when you allow the 'illusion' to be 'illusion'? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:35:48 GMT -5
;D A ginger bearded Mahatma. Problem is, I like curry too much to fast! Curry. Yuck. Otherwise, Mahatma is a brand of rice we buy out here, so I don't think use of the term in the case of A is very flattering. Haha nothing like being compared to a bag of rice to banish any illusions of grandeur. Its appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:38:21 GMT -5
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. Allowing is, of course, a good thing, but it's not enough to allow illusion cuz illusion remains. For example, learning how to allow your self image to be attacked is fine, but better to see through the illusion of self image. In full allowance, the duality of illusion/reality is transcended. I do agree that 'allowing' as a kind of 'doing' isn't enough, but I am talking about the beingness of it, not the doingness of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:39:33 GMT -5
Curry. Yuck. Otherwise, Mahatma is a brand of rice we buy out here, so I don't think use of the term in the case of A is very flattering. We have Mahatma rice on the grocer's shelves here, too. He's everywhere!! ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 16:40:03 GMT -5
Allowing is, of course, a good thing, but it's not enough to allow illusion cuz illusion remains. For example, learning how to allow your self image to be attacked is fine, but better to see through the illusion of self image. In full allowance, the duality of illusion/reality is transcended. I do agree that 'allowing' as a kind of 'doing' isn't enough, but I am talking about the beingness of it, not the doingness of it. Oh. My. God. I get it. Okay. I'm floored. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 16:41:08 GMT -5
In full allowance, the duality of illusion/reality is transcended. I do agree that 'allowing' as a kind of 'doing' isn't enough, but I am talking about the beingness of it, not the doingness of it. Oh. My. God. I get it. Okay. I'm floored. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Dec 28, 2012 16:51:00 GMT -5
I honestly don't understand why peeps have such a problem with paradoxes and paradoxicalness. I haven't read past page 2 and more than likely won't because I'm a lazy bastard and would rather exercise or play video games these days (back to the good old days!), but something I like to do (although don't do very frequently because it's easy to hurt yourself) is somersault. So here we go: -Somersault- In the middle of that somersault, I can think, "is reality paradoxical?" But in reality there is some weird 23 year old kid doing a somersault, laughing, and probably slamming into something or knocking something off a shelf from the vibration in the weak floors of his house. Those are facts. That has occurred before and has a slight chance of happening again in the future. Within those facts, there is ample space for thinking about reality, paradox, or any other floating space boulder nonsense we care to think about--but after the thinking is done we return to the facts. We can question ourselves and wonder why, when, or how our thoughts come to us. All of this transpires in the mind, though, and the things we think of are not real. Instances may occur where our thoughts aline with the facts or influence us to do things in the future, but the thoughts remain thoughts and are still imaginary. So back to the paradox issue: we can imagine that reality is or is not paradoxical as much as we like but those thoughts, like these ones, are again just imaginary. To get to the truth of the matter, focus on the happening. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 16:58:54 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. All language is limiting by virtue of the process of discrimination by which words and ideas are formed. We can say that the comment "The use of 'ultimate' is limiting" is a limiting use of words. All words are limiting by their nature. They're formed by placing little mental boxes around infinity in order to differentiate something. To use words to talk about how words are limiting, and to imply that therefore words shouldn't be used, is the result of TMT. It's not paradoxical, it's just mind not knowing when to STFU. The option is to not talk about anything, and it's a legitimate one, but I suggest that it won't stop mind from indulging it's illusions. I certainly don't see Andrew avoiding limiting by use of words. I see him differentiating endlessly in the name of nondifferentiation. It's a real challenge to use a butcher blade on a cow to demonstrate that the cow is forever whole. Egos have cherished freedom from the moment they climbed out of the treeless trees. I don't have a problem with that either. The problem is in how an illusion can make itself free. That seems to be why it's taking so long to figure it out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:07:46 GMT -5
Egos have cherished freedom from the moment they climbed out of the treeless trees. I don't have a problem with that either. The problem is in how an illusion can make itself free. That seems to be why it's taking so long to figure it out. "Illusion" has been free since before the beginning of time. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 17:08:44 GMT -5
Allowing is, of course, a good thing, but it's not enough to allow illusion cuz illusion remains. For example, learning how to allow your self image to be attacked is fine, but better to see through the illusion of self image. Won't the 'illusion' of self image be revealed as 'illusion' when you allow the 'illusion' to be 'illusion'? If you're allowing it to be illusion, then you've already seen through the illusion and there is no more illusion, which is a paradox. If you mean 'allowing it to be without resisting it', I'd say it goes on being believed and sooner or later you'll end up in a school room with a gun. In one of the quotes Niz talked about investigating what mind is in order to dissolve it. He didn't suggest allowing or indulging it. |
|
