|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:54:39 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'. The only thing that's 'tough' for me, is convincing you that you're stuck in your mind, dude, while you continue to think that everything is illusion. I am. But, you're telling me that even what I am is an illusion. Indeed, Being, Self, Reality, Truth, God, whatever, imperceptable. This is because in order for there to be a perception, there has to be a perceiver. Yet, how can one perceive what one IS? This would imply two--a perceiver and a perceived. Reminds me of an Adya quote: "which way does an eyeball look to know its nature as a eyeball". Heretofore, I thought you understood what it meant to BE. Apparently, I was mistaken. Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:56:33 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. stuck = attached? Actually, I rather see him spinning his mental gears, right now. Rather like being stuck in mud bog.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 16, 2013 10:56:37 GMT -5
Yes, neti neti itself is the idea for a process whose end culmination is no idea. Your proposal is a claim that exploring the process is not worthwhile or it's claimed end is not achievable. I can attest to there being a state of being that is outside/prior to the mind. 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. 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. Yes, Andology is consistent, to be sure. It presumes that all ideas are prior to what they describe, that anything seen is created by the label first, and can then be manipulated and confused to keep separateness alive (the underlying goal of the ego's fluid and almost seamless control). This looks inconsistent, but that's how egos appear. For example, to Andology, "neti neti" seems to just be a vain idea to reach another "experience" or "state of mind", because it appears to only understand the term from "a reality experienced by an individual in a state of mind". It seemingly "attests" experience from mind and assuming all must be contained within ego-driven mind. In essence it claims primacy of the physical (mind) and alludes to spirituality in a way that remains consistent to its "state of mind" at the time. It doesn't allow that all this "minding" stuff is happening within a field of awareness, that mind is secondary. In the Andology model, its mind must be primary (e.g., "attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind", even though there are vague wishes of maintaining an air of spiritual. It seeks to bring everything down to its level and whack it around with endless words, ideation, and confusion. Its toolbox for maintaining the illusion of separation. Again, it is consistent in its inconsistency. Wandering aimlessly through a forest of idea, choosing the fruits it likes that are consistent with its state of mind, etc. Relatively clear, but not actually. It's just ego talking. Sincerely, Love
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 10:58:04 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. 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. Yes, Andology is consistent, to be sure. It presumes that all ideas are prior to what they describe, that anything seen is created by the label first, and can then be manipulated and confused to keep separateness alive (the underlying goal of the ego's fluid and almost seamless control). This looks inconsistent, but that's how egos appear. For example, to Andology, "neti neti" seems to just be a vain idea to reach another "experience" or "state of mind", because it appears to only understand the term from "a reality experienced by an individual in a state of mind". It seemingly "attests" experience from mind and assuming all must be contained within ego-driven mind. In essence it claims primacy of the physical (mind) and alludes to spirituality in a way that remains consistent to its "state of mind" at the time. It doesn't allow that all this "minding" stuff is happening within a field of awareness, that mind is secondary. In the Andology model, its mind must be primary (e.g., "attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind", even though there are vague wishes of maintaining an air of spiritual. It seeks to bring everything down to its level and whack it around with endless words, ideation, and confusion. Its toolbox for maintaining the illusion of separation. Again, it is consistent in its inconsistency. Wandering aimlessly through a forest of idea, choosing the fruits it likes that are consistent with its state of mind, etc. Relatively clear, but not actually. It's just ego talking. Sincerely, Love 'Andology'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 10:59:21 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'. The only thing that's 'tough' for me, is convincing you that you're stuck in your mind, dude, while you continue to think that everything is illusion. I am. But, you're telling me that even what I am is an illusion. Indeed, Being, Self, Reality, Truth, God, whatever, imperceptable. This is because in order for there to be a perception, there has to be a perceiver. Yet, how can one perceive what one IS? This would imply two--a perceiver and a perceived. Reminds me of an Adya quote: "which way does an eyeball look to know its nature as a eyeball". Heretofore, I thought you understood what it meant to BE. Apparently, I was mistaken. Apologies. They are imperceptible for the simple reason that they don't exist! A dog perceives food, trees, rabbits...it probably even dreams at night, but still stuff that exists. Being, Self, Reality, Truth....all conceptual stepping stones and focussing on them is to focus on a particular abstract idea, even if it doesn't seem that way. Transcending mind and direct experience is possible, but it requires releasing the non-dual conceptual crutches. It requires returning to stuff that exists, to the perceivable.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:01:21 GMT -5
stuck = attached? Actually, I rather see him spinning his mental gears, right now. Rather like being stuck in mud bog. I am pointing beyond identification with form in a very pure way. I am saying, its ALL an illusion, and not even that. Realization of this, is a return to the perceivable, no more focussing on non-dual conceptual crutches.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:05:12 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. 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. Yes, Andology is consistent, to be sure. It presumes that all ideas are prior to what they describe, that anything seen is created by the label first, and can then be manipulated and confused to keep separateness alive (the underlying goal of the ego's fluid and almost seamless control). This looks inconsistent, but that's how egos appear. For example, to Andology, "neti neti" seems to just be a vain idea to reach another "experience" or "state of mind", because it appears to only understand the term from "a reality experienced by an individual in a state of mind". It seemingly "attests" experience from mind and assuming all must be contained within ego-driven mind. In essence it claims primacy of the physical (mind) and alludes to spirituality in a way that remains consistent to its "state of mind" at the time. It doesn't allow that all this "minding" stuff is happening within a field of awareness, that mind is secondary. In the Andology model, its mind must be primary (e.g., "attest to there being a state of being that seems outside of mind", even though there are vague wishes of maintaining an air of spiritual. It seeks to bring everything down to its level and whack it around with endless words, ideation, and confusion. Its toolbox for maintaining the illusion of separation. Again, it is consistent in its inconsistency. Wandering aimlessly through a forest of idea, choosing the fruits it likes that are consistent with its state of mind, etc. Relatively clear, but not actually. It's just ego talking. Sincerely, Love Your first paragraph is not even remotely what I am saying. Neti neti could be said to be another vain idea to reach a particular state of mind/being, that's true. Not necessarily unhelpful though by any means. A useful crutch perhaps. I am definitely not saying mind is primary, I am pointing beyond mind, but you, like several others possibly, have confused experiencing a non-idea with direct experience. Its an easy mistake to make. You have swapped identification with form for identification with an abstract concept.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 11:13:17 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. Or, in his own words, "attached to a mental position". Usually he calls himself just "taking a mental position" but others being "attached to a mental position". His house of cards is built on several flawed premises (reality in itself is paradoxical, there are only personal vantage points, prior to mind is just a mental position etc.). The trick works for him because he has convinced himself into believing that he is free from any self-image, others, however, are not. Also, he sees nothing impersonal, to him there are only personal vantage points. So when others consistently talk about reality in itself not being paradoxical and impersonal, he can sit back an laugh, sees them attached to a mental position and defending a self-image while he is able to hop freely from one personal vantage point to the next. Not realizing that he's going in full circles all the time and therefore not noticing the belief elephants in his room.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:18:03 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. Or, in his own words, "attached to a mental position". Usually he calls himself just "taking a mental position" but others being "attached to a mental position". His house of cards is built on several flawed premises (reality in itself is paradoxical, there are only personal vantage points, prior to mind is just a mental position etc.). The trick works for him because he has convinced himself into believing that he is free from any self-image, others, however, are not. Also, he sees nothing impersonal, to him there are only personal vantage points. So when others consistently talk about reality in itself not being paradoxical and impersonal, he can sit back an laugh, sees them attached to a mental position and defending a self-image while he is able to hop freely from one personal vantage point to the next. Not realizing that he's going in full circles all the time and therefore not noticing the belief elephants in his room. 1) Reality is paradoxical in one way.2) A vantage point is personal by definition (hence why it is a 'point'), an impersonal vantage point is a particular kind of personal vantage point. 3) The idea of there being something prior to mind is a useful conceptual stepping stone. This is collapsed by 'emptiness is form and form is emptiness'. 4) I wouldn't say that I am free from all self-image. 5) I am rarely sitting back and laughing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 11:19:44 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'. The only thing that's 'tough' for me, is convincing you that you're stuck in your mind, dude, while you continue to think that everything is illusion. I am. But, you're telling me that even what I am is an illusion. Indeed, Being, Self, Reality, Truth, God, whatever, imperceptable. This is because in order for there to be a perception, there has to be a perceiver. Yet, how can one perceive what one IS? This would imply two--a perceiver and a perceived. Reminds me of an Adya quote: "which way does an eyeball look to know its nature as a eyeball".Heretofore, I thought you understood what it meant to BE. Apparently, I was mistaken. Apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 16, 2013 11:20:40 GMT -5
stuck = attached? Actually, I rather see him spinning his mental gears, right now. Rather like being stuck in mud bog. Yeah, he probably will go beyond the 100 posts mark today.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 16, 2013 11:22:03 GMT -5
Actually, I rather see him spinning his mental gears, right now. Rather like being stuck in mud bog. Yeah, he probably will go beyond the 100 posts mark today. You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 11:27:56 GMT -5
The only thing that's 'tough' for me, is convincing you that you're stuck in your mind, dude, while you continue to think that everything is illusion. I am. But, you're telling me that even what I am is an illusion. Indeed, Being, Self, Reality, Truth, God, whatever, imperceptable. This is because in order for there to be a perception, there has to be a perceiver. Yet, how can one perceive what one IS? This would imply two--a perceiver and a perceived. Reminds me of an Adya quote: "which way does an eyeball look to know its nature as a eyeball". Heretofore, I thought you understood what it meant to BE. Apparently, I was mistaken. Apologies. They are imperceptible for the simple reason that they don't exist! A dog perceives food, trees, rabbits...it probably even dreams at night, but still stuff that exists. Indeed, as concepts, they do not exist. But, are you now going to tell me that a dog has no basis in reality? Are you going to say that 'what is' ... really isn't? mmkay. I think I'm gonna have to throw up my hands, again, with you. When someone enjoys so much being stuck in the mud, it seems rather pointless to tell them that they're stuck in the mud.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 16, 2013 11:29:27 GMT -5
The only thing that's 'tough' for me, is convincing you that you're stuck in your mind, dude, while you continue to think that everything is illusion. I am. But, you're telling me that even what I am is an illusion. Indeed, Being, Self, Reality, Truth, God, whatever, imperceptable. This is because in order for there to be a perception, there has to be a perceiver. Yet, how can one perceive what one IS? This would imply two--a perceiver and a perceived. Reminds me of an Adya quote: "which way does an eyeball look to know its nature as a eyeball".Heretofore, I thought you understood what it meant to BE. Apparently, I was mistaken. Apologies. Indeed, when I first .. 'got' that quote, I pretty much rofl'd, myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2013 11:30:08 GMT -5
Yeah, he probably will go beyond the 100 posts mark today. You seem to be racking them up yourself talking about me. Putting my posts on ignore doesn't seem to have resolved your obsession with me, perhaps one of the others will post this for you to see. Yes, Andrew, I've been scratching my head over this one myself. He puts you on his ignore list, but then diligently follows the conversations you are having with others, making disparaging comments about you all the way along....It does indeed look like 'obsession.' ...I suspect I'm on that list as well.
|
|