|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 10:21:41 GMT -5
You argue with what I say so that ultimately you can say something similar with different words? This has been pointed out to you before, that you will disarage what someone else says or the way they say it so that you can provide your expression of it instead. I am making a different point. I am saying that there are 3 basic groups 1) Focus on Becoming (or growth) 2) Focus on Being 3) Unification of Being/Becoming, in which there is no longer any reason to focus on 'Being' (which is an idea). We definitely do not share the same ontology. Being is not an idea, it is direct experience. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:23:28 GMT -5
Truth, Being, Self, Reality...are all illusions of the mind to be included and transcended. If it cannot be perceived, it is an illusion of the mind. They are abstract conceptual ideas, crutches. Yes, you most certainly like to make 'what is' into an idea. You seem stuck on ideas, stuck in your mind, stuck on perception, stuck on experience, and the quality of experience. I can't see how you figure this. I am pointing about as far from mind as is possible by showing that those 'things' are illusion, and exist conceptually only. I am 'stuck' IN the perceivable and the experience-able, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:26:38 GMT -5
I am making a different point. I am saying that there are 3 basic groups 1) Focus on Becoming (or growth) 2) Focus on Being 3) Unification of Being/Becoming, in which there is no longer any reason to focus on 'Being' (which is an idea). We definitely do not share the same ontology. Being is not an idea, it is direct experience. 'Being' is a (useful) idea created by humans that have identified with form. It is creating an illusion, a stepping stone in the mind, so as to transcend identification with form. In direct experience, there is no focus on Being, Truth, Self, Reality, Peace. There is no focus on non-content or non-ideas. The focus is on the perceivable and experienceable. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Mar 16, 2013 10:30:16 GMT -5
Yes, you most certainly like to make 'what is' into an idea. You seem stuck on ideas, stuck in your mind, stuck on perception, stuck on experience, and the quality of experience. I can't see how you figure this. I am pointing about as far from mind as is possible by showing that those 'things' are illusion, and exist conceptually only. I am 'stuck' IN the perceivable and the experience-able, yes. If I were to mirror you, then I would be telling you that "the perceivable" and "the experiencable" are just concepts, mental ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:31:54 GMT -5
Again, I'm not talking about Reality as a concept. You are. So, perhaps it is some kind of crutch for you. As for dogs, they do not require Reality. What they ARE is Reality. Just as 'what is' is Reality. They don't make ideas out them, either. Once again, you are referring to 'what is' as an abstract idea. Sounds like ... you're stuck.  'Reality' can ONLY be a concept. 'What is' can ONLY be a concept. They are unperceivable. If you can't perceive them, then they exist at the level of the intellect only, though they exist in an odd way, because the concept is defined so as to point away from the intellect. Its all still intellect though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:36:03 GMT -5
To say they are Reality, what is, God is fine as a pointer, but is creating an illusion so as to point away from the identification with form. At some point, that illusion is not necessary.
I know you are talking about 'what is'. 'Reality'. God. Essence. We are talking about illusions. Useful ones, but illusions never the less.
Hence why Niz talks of primary illusions and secondary illusions. What I am pointing out here is the secondary illusion, and am saying that when the secondary illusion is not necessary, there is a return to focusing on form, but without the identification with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:36:33 GMT -5
Yes, you most certainly like to make 'what is' into an idea. You seem stuck on ideas, stuck in your mind, stuck on perception, stuck on experience, and the quality of experience. I can't see how you figure this. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 16, 2013 10:37:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. We definitely do not share the same ontology. Being is not an idea, it is direct experience. 'Being' is a (useful) idea created by humans that have identified with form. It is creating an illusion, a stepping stone in the mind, so as to transcend identification with form. In direct experience, there is no focus on Being, Truth, Self, Reality, Peace. There is no focus on non-content or non-ideas. The focus is on the perceivable and experienceable. Direct experience unifies form and formless into the 'experience'.. whether it is 'being', or teaching a Taiji class, or driving an auto, or Zen's 'Empty Mind', or realization, those are all 'experiences'.. they are direct or they are abstract, and if we're talking 'about' the experience it is already abstract.. There are gifted communicators that can tell a story that allows others to have their own experience without prejudicing or influencing that experience.. more so, there are those whose lives are lived as examples, no words necessary.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:42:45 GMT -5
I can't see how you figure this. ''That's because you're trying to figure out how I figure. I'm not figuring jack. I'm just being. I am pointing about as far from mind as is possible by showing that those 'things' are illusion, and exist conceptually only. No you're not. You are wallowing in mind. Even illusion is a concept. Yet, you use your concepts to point to other concepts. This is hyper-minding, as someone around here called it (and an appropriate term, if I might add). I am 'stuck' IN the perceivable and the experience-able, yes. Well, at least you admit that you're stuck, too. I may return again to this admission, sometime, if only to remind you.'' **** To say that you are 'just being' is a pointer. Its also creating an illusion. I agree that illusion is a concept, and I am using that concept to show that Being, Truth, Self, Reality...exist only in the mind. They are all just useful conceptual stepping stones, ideas we engage with to take a step beyond identification. I used the word 'stuck' because you did, my experience is not of being stuck. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:43:16 GMT -5
To say they are Reality, what is, God is fine as a pointer, but is creating an illusion so as to point away from the identification with form. At some point, that illusion is not necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 10:44:26 GMT -5
Neti neti starts with a presupposition that there is something prior to ideas. So I am suggesting that 'no idea' certainly seems (and is experienced) like 'no idea', but is actually still an idea. Perhaps best described as a non-idea, or non-content. Still an idea though, still content. When 'Being' or 'Existence' of 'changelessness' is focussed upon, it is an idea being focussed upon. I would also attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind, but in this state, non-ideas and non-content are not actually focused on. Only qualia are perceived. There is no focus on abstract ideas. Its like the mountain thing...mountain, no mountain, mountain. This has been pointed out to you before, that you will disarage what someone else says or the way they say it so that you can provide your expression of it instead.Yup, yup. It usually takes a while until he comes back to the same point with the same words, sometimes it takes months. It's parroting with a time lag. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:47:46 GMT -5
Being, Self, Reality, Truth.....none of those are perceivable. That means they only exist as abstract concepts, concepts created as useful tools. They are not necessary. I see this is tough for you...but this is the secondary illusion. Beyond that there is a return to form, a direct return to the perceivable, no more escaping into 'Being, Reality, What Is, Self'.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2013 10:49:17 GMT -5
If one is anchored in something it isn't what's pointed to by "the changeless". Can't be ... even logic is helpful on this point, although we don't have to resort to it. Yeah, If one is attached to the idea of 'the changeless' their understanding is conceptual. From a position of balance, where there is no either/or, but all facets of 'this' are embraced, any 'orientation' begins to appear a bit suspect. The very fact that one 'leans' more to one side than the other, in my estimation indicates the possibility of a certain amount of attachment. Once we see, and experientially understand "it's all a play of ideas" orientation in either direction begins to fall away. yes...I think I understand what you're saying here... Yup...Attachment or absence of attachment....It's an important question. Attachment assumes the condition precedent of identification. Both/and, as opposed to either/or, is actually a statement of identification. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:50:40 GMT -5
Both/and, as opposed to either/or, is actually a statement of identification. Either/or is polarity. Both/and is inclusive and therefore transcends polarity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 10:51:42 GMT -5
The moment it is conceptualized, it is a crutch. Does a dog require 'Reality'? Again, I'm not talking about Reality as a concept. You are. So, perhaps it is some kind of crutch for you. As for dogs, they do not require Reality. What they ARE is Reality. Just as 'what is' is Reality. They don't make ideas out them, either. Once again, you are referring to 'what is' as an abstract idea. Sounds like ... you're stuck. stuck = attached? |
|
