|
|
Post by silver on Dec 29, 2012 0:41:38 GMT -5
Sorry, Reefs, but I have no idea what you are saying, here. Wasn't really looking to be excused for anything. Like  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 0:44:08 GMT -5
No, actually, A did say this: ... which goes to show you how good my memory has become. Can't even remember something that someone wrote just 5 minutes before.  Heterodox said it, which is why I didn't mention it. Okay, well, if Heterodox introduced the concept, I must have missed it. But, you said that *I* said it, which confused me. Heck if I know. Are they? Just trying to point out to you where you appear to be coming from, not exactly what you're writing. Okay, so suffering is bad, to you. Actually, this is an identity question, to which I simply don't know how to respond. Seems I did go through a kind of ... 'shift' today, though, after reading the recent exchanges. Stuff happens as it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2012 0:46:50 GMT -5
Sorry, Reefs, but I have no idea what you are saying, here. Wasn't really looking to be excused for anything. What I meant say is that I can see how would fancy Temp's explanations. It's very promising. He does a really good sales job. He seems to have the perfect explanation. It sounds like: "Accept the dogma of the church of paradoxes today and be free and self-realized as soon as today."  It's the only certainty there is. It's intuitive. Even if you question it mentally, the very act of questioning would only prove your existence. Even logic will tell you that. So both logic and intuition tell you the same. However, some here might mistake illusion as intuition. Well, Niz would ask: "Does Bombay exist? When you go there where they say Bombay is, you only see streets and houses. So where is Bombay?" Remember what Ramana said: The ego is also the Self. The jnani also says "I am the body". |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 0:53:39 GMT -5
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? You are not a 'people'. The old Beingist who you did away with and stole your identity from knew that. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 0:54:06 GMT -5
Sorry, Reefs, but I have no idea what you are saying, here. Wasn't really looking to be excused for anything. What I meant say is that I can see how would fancy Temp's explanations. It's very promising. He does a really good sales job. He seems to have the perfect explanation. It sounds like: "Accept the dogma of the church of paradoxes today and be free and self-realized as soon as today." This of yours is a projection, of course, but if you want to point out the salespeople, you can say the same about 3/4 of all the folks here. Just about everyone is selling something. This doesn't answer the question. Ah, so the 'I' isn't an illusion, as per E? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 1:03:25 GMT -5
... which goes to show you how good my memory has become. Can't even remember something that someone wrote just 5 minutes before. Heterodox said it, which is why I didn't mention it. Okay, well, if Heterodox introduced the concept, I must have missed it. But, you said that *I* said it, which confused me.[/quote] You said: Andrew is an illusion. You don't know if a mirage is bad? Are you implying some folks think suffering is good? Well, do you have a fireplace poker or sumthin with blood on it? Interesting..... |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 29, 2012 1:15:50 GMT -5
Forgive me, E., if I lose track of all this quoting stuff, but I'm doing my best, here, under the circumstances (posting quotes while laughing your a$$ off ain't easy). Okay. So is enigma. So is Beingist. I'm guessing you're going somewhere with this. I'm game. That's not the point. Point is that *you* think it's bad. No (though some just might think suffering is good. I don't really know). Again, the point is that *you* think suffering is bad. Can't find my quote that this was in response to, but the delivery caused an involuntary inhalation of my beverage into my sinus cavities. Ain't it, though? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 29, 2012 1:49:40 GMT -5
This of yours is a projection, of course, but if you want to point out the salespeople, you can say the same about 3/4 of all the folks here. Just about everyone is selling something. Looks to me that Temp is the only one here who promises instant results by the mere power of acceptance (of his dogma). That question shouldn't even arise. The mere fact that it arises means that there's something screwy going on. No. Ramana says: One is limited, one is not. When the limited (intermediary) I goes, the unlimited I alone remains. |
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Dec 29, 2012 1:59:45 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! Woo! Score one for: |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2012 2:18:40 GMT -5
Forgive me, E., if I lose track of all this quoting stuff, but I'm doing my best, here, under the circumstances (posting quotes while laughing your a$$ off ain't easy). Okay. So is enigma. So is Beingist. I'm guessing you're going somewhere with this. I'm game. That's not the point. Point is that *you* think it's bad. No (though some just might think suffering is good. I don't really know). Again, the point is that *you* think suffering is bad. Can't find my quote that this was in response to, but the delivery caused an involuntary inhalation of my beverage into my sinus cavities. Interesting..... Ain't it, though? ;D[/quote] WTF? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 3:03:41 GMT -5
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? I was talking about the value of the differentiating (and context hopping). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 3:10:00 GMT -5
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. To be clear, I haven't spoken of a free person, though I have spoken of a free mind. Even as I said that, I could see the slight problem with the idea, but there is going to be a potential problem with anything I say to be fair (because that's the nature of the game). So I will try it this way. What I have been pointing to is being in allowance (as a being, not a doing) of mind with all its 'flaws' (contradictory ideas, confusion and paradox). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 3:21:44 GMT -5
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. 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[/quote] The only thing wrong with conditioning is that it is only half the story, claiming to be the whole story. What often happens on the spiritual path is that people turn their back on conditioned stories and believe non-dual stories. This is still the conditioning playing itself out. So the key is to be in allowance of the old story and the new story. An aspect of this 'in allowance' is that 'belief' has been dropped altogether. The stories that there is individuality, free will, separation and duality are not wrong. They are only wrong when they are taken as whole truth not partial truth. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 3:23:37 GMT -5
How CAN one know that they exist? Doesn't that imply twoness--a knower and a known? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 29, 2012 3:29:41 GMT -5
It's the only certainty there is. It's intuitive. Even if you question it mentally, the very act of questioning would only prove your existence. Even logic will tell you that. So both logic and intuition tell you the same. However, some here might mistake illusion as intuition. There is no proof that there is questioning happening. Existence cannot be proved. The idea of 'proof' itself is actually a misnomer (which provides us with a strange kind of non-proof of stuff). I would agree that logically and intuitively it seems that we exist. However, a) I don't experience myself as separate from logic and intuition and b) I do not experience any gap between knower and known so there is no tangible sense at all of sureness or certainty. The reason I don't experience any gap is because I am not 'in belief' of any story (either logic or intuitive). |
|
