|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 19:49:19 GMT -5
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. 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. A didn't say anything about it, you did. "Mind", and the personhood implied with "all beings" are both illusions. Free mind and free persons are illusions trying to be free. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 20:13:41 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.  From a vantage point based in minding/duality, there certainly is nothing wrong with declaring duality as the ultimate truth. So you are excused. But here is the billion dollar question for you: Are you sure that you exist at all (no matter if with or without attributes)? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 20:34:15 GMT -5
Duality isn't what I mean when I refer to illusion. Illusion is in the misinterpretation of dualistic experience. Exactly. That's what I call jumping the gun, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 21:09:11 GMT -5
Duality isn't what I mean when I refer to illusion. Illusion is in the misinterpretation of dualistic experience. Exactly. That's what I call jumping the gun, hehe. I guess if we can call duality illusion, we never have to notice how we're not seeing it as it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 21:32:46 GMT -5
Gateless gate is more appropriate than 'gateway'. I would say.....(and I am joking....kind of) 'paradox and confusion are the two fierce and gentle non-guardians at the gateless gate to the truthless truth of you are, if there even is a you that is.' (** flips up collar of leather jacket, looks quickly and fleetingly from side to side ... rubs hands together and puts them in pockets **) (** whispering **) Pssssst ... hey ... Andrew! ... puttin' the minds spin on somethin' like this is one thing ... rephrasing it is somethin' else! Far be it from me to offer rebuke, just sayin'!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 21:45:58 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. (-- sincere --) (** applause **) (-- thinks twice about raising hand in response to the next face slap from mamza --) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 21:49:36 GMT -5
I lied and read more. This is awesome. ^ (** Reaches for box marked "silence", pours some in bowl, sprinkles sugar on top **) (-- deliberately refraining from commenting on the endless stream of words that spin-out in the tug-of-war about the propriety of the use of the word "ultimate" in the disclaimer of thought --) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 22:03:27 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. 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. A bold grab for ownership of the "A-word" sir ... I got away with using it carelessly the other day. Yes, confusion comes and goes in the mind, and when the mind is seen as not who we are the confusion is not ours even as it moves on through. (this, quite possibly, makes me the ultimate non-dualist on the board....) ;D Irony is never lost on laughter. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 22:04:06 GMT -5
;D There are as many Idaho's as there are people. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2012 23:11:35 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." I don't know the source of that quote; all I know is that when I look around, I see no paradox or confusion. I see "what is" and there is no confusion about that. Ha ha. *stands up, turns around, and sits back down* I went for a hike this afternoon with the 15 year old fellow I wrote about a few months ago. He told me that he's been having all kinds of strange experiences related to meditation. He had been questioning what perceives the world, and one day he disappeared as the center of perception. Yet, perception continued without a center. He didn't even know what had asked the question. Ha ha. It kinda freaked him out, but he continued. I assured him that he's on the right track if he wants to know the truth. I said, "Just stay alert and pay attention. There is only THIS, here and now." He got very quiet. I was walking in front of him. After a few minutes, I loudly demanded, "What is the truth?" I could hear him stomp his feet on the ground behind me in response to my question. Ha ha. Too funny for words! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 23:35:45 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." I don't know the source of that quote; all I know is that when I look around, I see no paradox or confusion. I see "what is" and there is no confusion about that. Ha ha. *stands up, turns around, and sits back down* I went for a hike this afternoon with the 15 year old fellow I wrote about a few months ago. He told me that he's been having all kinds of strange experiences related to meditation. He had been questioning what perceives the world, and one day he disappeared as the center of perception. Yet, perception continued without a center. He didn't even know what had asked the question. Ha ha. It kinda freaked him out, but he continued. I assured him that he's on the right track if he wants to know the truth. I said, "Just stay alert and pay attention. There is only THIS, here and now." He got very quiet. I was walking in front of him. After a few minutes, I loudly demanded, "What is the truth?" I could hear him stomp his feet on the ground behind me in response to my question. Ha ha. Too funny for words! Hehe. Funny image, and pretty culo. We toadally agree, there's no paradox goin on here. No confusion. No need to accept such a state. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 23:48:57 GMT -5
I could hear him stomp his feet on the ground behind me in response to my question. ( _________________________________________________) |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 0:20:16 GMT -5
A didn't say anything about it, you did. "Mind", and the personhood implied with "all beings" are both illusions. Free mind and free persons are illusions trying to be free. No, actually, A did say this: 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.... which goes to show you how good my memory has become. Can't even remember something that someone wrote just 5 minutes before. But, back to the illusion thing. Okay, so all people, as such, are illusions, per what you claim above. Assuming that is even true, so what? Nothing to be done about it, as such requires 'doing'. Hence, my point, which is that you must see people as bad, since they're illusions, which are bad. Otherwise, why suggest that people are illusions? Why such emphasis on illusion at all? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 0:32:11 GMT -5
A didn't say anything about it, you did. "Mind", and the personhood implied with "all beings" are both illusions. Free mind and free persons are illusions trying to be free. No, actually, A did say this:
"Illusion" has been free since before the beginning of time.... which goes to show you how good my memory has become. Can't even remember something that someone wrote just 5 minutes before. [/quote] Heterodox said it, which is why I didn't mention it. Illusions aren't bad. Is a mirage bad? I rarely if ever suggest anybody do anything about anything. What I suggest is noticing, and in this case noticing that an illusion can't be free should put an end to trying to free the illusion. Why mention illusions? All suffering results from believing in illusions. So what did you do with the real Beingist? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 0:36:01 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. From a vantage point based in minding/duality, there certainly is nothing wrong with declaring duality as the ultimate truth. So you are excused. Sorry, Reefs, but I have no idea what you are saying, here. Wasn't really looking to be excused for anything. How CAN one know that they exist? Doesn't that imply twoness--a knower and a known? Besides, talk of late is that people are illusions. Can an illusion know that it exists? |
|
