|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 17:14:01 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. One cannot be allowance as a means of transcending illusion. The belief in illusion won't 'allow' for it. |
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Dec 28, 2012 17:14:11 GMT -5
I lied and read more. This is awesome. ^
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 17:17:46 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. One cannot be allowance as a means of transcending illusion. The belief in illusion won't 'allow' for it. As I said, really quite clearly by my standards I thought, I'm not talking about allowing as a 'doing' in any way shape or form. I am talking about being in allowance....a 'beingness'. This allowance transcends the duality of illusion/reality. I wouldn't suggest that we try and allow our way out of separation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 17:19:30 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. Illusion refers to a false perception. It's neither free nor unfree. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 17:22:51 GMT -5
One cannot be allowance as a means of transcending illusion. The belief in illusion won't 'allow' for it. As I said, really quite clearly by my standards I thought, I'm not talking about allowing as a 'doing' in any way shape or form. I am talking about being in allowance....a 'beingness'. This allowance transcends the duality of illusion/reality. I wouldn't suggest that we try and allow our way out of separation. Read what I wrote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 17:23:45 GMT -5
"Illusion" has been free since before the beginning of time. Illusion refers to a false perception. It's neither free nor unfree. The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth (or, as enigma refers to it-illusion) the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 17:31:33 GMT -5
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. I hear what you're saying, but this is how I'm hearing it: "Illusion is bad, and so you must see through it, even though it's a paradox, which is bad, too. If you don't see through it, you'll shoot children, which is definitely very bad, which means that I think you're just bad." In regards the last part, I understand and agree. But, the process of investigating what mind is, do you not consider it counterproductive to see it as bad, or that illusion is bad? Hardly seems non-dualistic. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 17:32:14 GMT -5
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. I would say that it has become pretty clear that 'everything is a play of ideas' through all these forum debates, through all the differentiating and all the context hopping (and I am not the only one by any means!). It really has been experienced and I think it could be described as tiring, confusing and amusing. That's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that that any of that has been my intention, I take messages one message at a time, there is no plan. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 28, 2012 17:35:05 GMT -5
As I said, really quite clearly by my standards I thought, I'm not talking about allowing as a 'doing' in any way shape or form. I am talking about being in allowance....a 'beingness'. This allowance transcends the duality of illusion/reality. I wouldn't suggest that we try and allow our way out of separation. Read what I wrote. I did. I will try and say it another way, If we are 'in allowance' (which is a being not a doing), then illusion/reality has already been transcended. I am not suggesting that we can allow our way into 'allowance'. We cannot 'do' our way into 'being'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 18:44:32 GMT -5
I like and dislike having to bring this up again, but here goes...
In both the East and West, the idea that Indian sages condemned the "illusion of life" has taken root, and yet, as Maharishi explained, Vedic reality was not based on such an absurdity:
Question: Duality is just an illusion, is it not?
Maharishi: If duality is an illusion, then unity will not be established. Both have their values, and without duality, unity has no substance (Kinda like the Buddha's profound truth mentioned earlier). Both are natural, both are true. This is the nature (pure awareness?) of the world. Like light and darkness, the contradictions exist, they are there. The North Pole is there, and so is the South Pole.
Two polar opposites fuse into a whole- this principle puts the silent and active fields of life into proper perspective. When the rishi's found unity, the silent field of intelligence, they found the other pole that makes life complete. The ancient texts explain this as Purnam Adah, purnam idah- "This is full, that is full." Maharishi went on to explain how "the two fullnesses" compliment each other: There is one hundred percent diversity and one hundred percent unity, both performing their work at the same time. That is the nature of the work of creation- this is true reality. To us, one seems real and the other unreal. The reality is that both are real at the same time. As water is true, so ice is true. Both are quite opposed to each other, and yet their affinity is so great that the ice cannot exist without the water- it is water and nothing but water. So unity and diversity are there together and at the same time.
The highest goal of existence, then, is to achieve "two hundred percent of life." The human nervous system can accomplish this because it is flexible enough to appreciate both the diversity of life, which is infinite but full of boundaries, and the unified state, which is equally infinite, but completely unbounded. Just from a logical standpoint, no other possibility could exist. No one was given a cosmic computer and told, "Remember, you can only use half of it." No one gave us any limitations on the patterns of intelligence we can make, change, blend, expand, and inhabit. Life is a field of unlimited possibilities. Such is the glory of total flexibility in the human nervous system.
This is a tremendously important point. It says we can bypass the limited, bounded choices that we are used to making and go directly to the solution of any problem. The basis for this assertion is that nature has already structured the solution in our consciousness. The problems are in the field of diversity, while the solutions are in the field of unity. Going straight to the field of unity automatically hits upon the solution, which the mind-body system then carries out- that was the rishis' shortcut. -Chopra
Resting in awareness.
(this, quite possibly, makes me the ultimate non-dualist on the board....) ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 28, 2012 18:59:33 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. 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. True, but does mind EVER know when to stfu? There is indeed a difference between thinking and TMT, though. That difference is in the identification with thought. I don't see that in the terms A has used. Mind indulging in delusions isn't the point, but whether one entertains the delusions of mind, through identification with it. The rest, I'm not seeing, myself. At least not presently. I think the problem is identification with the illusion, and/or thinking that illusion is a bad thing, and as such, must eliminated. I don't recall A saying anything about illusions being free. I think that might be your inference. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 19:24:53 GMT -5
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. I hear what you're saying, but this is how I'm hearing it: "Illusion is bad, and so you must see through it, even though it's a paradox, which is bad, too. If you don't see through it, you'll shoot children, which is definitely very bad, which means that I think you're just bad." In regards the last part, I understand and agree. But, the process of investigating what mind is, do you not consider it counterproductive to see it as bad, or that illusion is bad? Hardly seems non-dualistic. I'm not inclined to comment on what you heard, only on what I said.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 19:27:28 GMT -5
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. I would say that it has become pretty clear that 'everything is a play of ideas' through all these forum debates, through all the differentiating and all the context hopping (and I am not the only one by any means!). It really has been experienced and I think it could be described as tiring, confusing and amusing. That's not a bad thing. I'm not saying that that any of that has been my intention, I take messages one message at a time, there is no plan. What does that have to do with what I said? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 19:28:55 GMT -5
I did. I will try and say it another way, If we are 'in allowance' (which is a being not a doing), then illusion/reality has already been transcended. I am not suggesting that we can allow our way into 'allowance'. We cannot 'do' our way into 'being'. I never suggested any of that either, nor did I suggest you did. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 19:42:18 GMT -5
I like and dislike having to bring this up again, but here goes... In both the East and West, the idea that Indian sages condemned the "illusion of life" has taken root, and yet, as Maharishi explained, Vedic reality was not based on such an absurdity: Question: Duality is just an illusion, is it not? Maharishi: If duality is an illusion, then unity will not be established. Both have their values, and without duality, unity has no substance (Kinda like the Buddha's profound truth mentioned earlier). Both are natural, both are true. This is the nature (pure awareness?) of the world. Like light and darkness, the contradictions exist, they are there. The North Pole is there, and so is the South Pole. Two polar opposites fuse into a whole- this principle puts the silent and active fields of life into proper perspective. When the rishi's found unity, the silent field of intelligence, they found the other pole that makes life complete. The ancient texts explain this as Purnam Adah, purnam idah- "This is full, that is full." Maharishi went on to explain how "the two fullnesses" compliment each other: There is one hundred percent diversity and one hundred percent unity, both performing their work at the same time. That is the nature of the work of creation- this is true reality. To us, one seems real and the other unreal. The reality is that both are real at the same time. As water is true, so ice is true. Both are quite opposed to each other, and yet their affinity is so great that the ice cannot exist without the water- it is water and nothing but water. So unity and diversity are there together and at the same time. The highest goal of existence, then, is to achieve "two hundred percent of life." The human nervous system can accomplish this because it is flexible enough to appreciate both the diversity of life, which is infinite but full of boundaries, and the unified state, which is equally infinite, but completely unbounded. Just from a logical standpoint, no other possibility could exist. No one was given a cosmic computer and told, "Remember, you can only use half of it." No one gave us any limitations on the patterns of intelligence we can make, change, blend, expand, and inhabit. Life is a field of unlimited possibilities. Such is the glory of total flexibility in the human nervous system. This is a tremendously important point. It says we can bypass the limited, bounded choices that we are used to making and go directly to the solution of any problem. The basis for this assertion is that nature has already structured the solution in our consciousness. The problems are in the field of diversity, while the solutions are in the field of unity. Going straight to the field of unity automatically hits upon the solution, which the mind-body system then carries out- that was the rishis' shortcut. -Chopra Resting in awareness. (this, quite possibly, makes me the ultimate non-dualist on the board....) ;D Duality isn't what I mean when I refer to illusion. Illusion is in the misinterpretation of dualistic experience. |
|
