Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 20:18:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Duality consciousness are like a main operating format for a computer, nonduality consciousness is just another main operating format. Duality consciousness is the format that 99.9999999999999999999% or so of us use to interact with this world that we live in. This is the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It keeps us asleep and cut off from all of creation. Duality consciousness is why we only use a small percentage of our brain, it is also why our brain is split in half. Our psychic abilities are very weak because of duality consciousness. People who reach enlightenment use nonduality consciousness as the main operating format for their brain. Their psychic abilities open up, they become healers, and no one can keep secrets from them. Why would you believe those ideas? Those are beliefs about what 'is'.. and what 'is' is not derived by beliefs in duality or nonduality.. you're getting attached to the beliefs confusion, where everybody has 'their own' beliefs and want their own beliefs to be 'the right' beliefs, but.. some other people's beliefs seem okay, too, and that's confusing when you want your beliefs to 'the right beliefs'.. don't get stuck in beliefs, just pay attention to what is actually happening and you will see beliefs for the illusions that they are.. for example: I know people that believe that all is one (nonduality), but.. contrary to your belief, " no one can keep secrets from them", i ask questions like "what is the subject of the picture immediately to my right", which is not even a secret, and.. they can't answer. you express the 'belief' that "no one can keep secrets from them", but that's not what actually is happening. it's your belief.. keeping a clear awareness about the claims people make, and the ways people use language to create illusions that entice beliefs, are useful ways to understand our relationships with the Life we are living and the existence we are living in.. the example i use is simple and the simplicity annoys people that want to create illusions with language and word-games, but.. the first rule of actuality, is being able to back-up claims without resorting to unverifiable conditions.. actuality is not conditional. Be well.. How do you guys know any of that to be true OR false.....and perhaps more importantly... Why?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 20:46:32 GMT -5
I've been wondering if Blue's concern about 'permanence' is because of his history with Steve. Reefs left for quite a while after Tath was banned. I've always believed that "Reefs/Exactamente/Blue is an alternate persona that Enigma brings out when his beliefs are poked at too much....when that happens...Enigma pulls back, while Blue advances.They are different people. You'll miss some of the nuances if you think they are the same. Hot mess explains it best I think. Are you sure someone hacked your acct? They'd need to know your pw. Nice to see you back. It was a little disturbing to see you get so upset.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 9, 2013 20:57:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. <capt_obvious>Well you see you kind of just did right there by speaking </capt_obvious> It's what Bluenigma mean when they ask you "do you know you exist?" and there's a really comic version of this that happens when tzu tells enigma that he just made a choice to say that there is no volitional person. Seems that the mind's tendency is to move to more and more spacious ideas....we come to the idea that "I am everything" or that there is Universal Oneness as Existance....but that's still not a spacious enough of an idea, so we go to ""I do not exist, and nothing exists" and that there is no volition, no doing, which seems to be the most spacious idea.....so far. Kinda like we keep buying bigger and bigger houses that are increasingly sparsely furnished. TZU says his house is the best because it includes all of Existence and all activity (it's the BIG party house) , Bluenigma says his house is the best because its the biggest and is utterly empty of everything and everyone and all activity, it's the chill house, full of peace. For the mystics out there, TZU's house is the house of Tantra (an all inclusion), and Bluenigma's house is the house of Yoga (an all exclusion). It's just all ideas though, things that people "know". I don't know any of that though, not even what I just typed. :-) That's not what 'TZU' says.. 'Tzu' says pay attention.. stop thinking, and simply pay attention just long enough to actually see what you're looking at, rather than what you 'think' you're looking at.. It's a bit disingenuous to misrepresent what people 'say', i.e.: "TZU says", then seek absolution through disclaiming your own participation by the illusion of not knowing what you typed.. just have a regular ol' conversation, sincere and open to new understandings.. mind/word-games are so counterproductive, they're some of the major reasons beliefs and illusions persist in an age when clarity is available without persecution from those that benefit from beliefs and illusions.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 21:05:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Seems that the mind's tendency is to move to more and more spacious ideas....we come to the idea that "I am everything" or that there is Universal Oneness as Existance....but that's still not a spacious enough of an idea, so we go to ""I do not exist, and nothing exists" and that there is no volition, no doing, which seems to be the most spacious idea.....so far. Kinda like we keep buying bigger and bigger houses that are increasingly sparsely furnished. TZU says his house is the best because it includes all of Existence and all activity (it's the BIG party house) , Bluenigma says his house is the best because its the biggest and is utterly empty of everything and everyone and all activity, it's the chill house, full of peace. For the mystics out there, TZU's house is the house of Tantra (an all inclusion), and Bluenigma's house is the house of Yoga (an all exclusion). It's just all ideas though, things that people "know". I don't know any of that though, not even what I just typed. :-) That's not what 'TZU' says.. 'Tzu' says pay attention.. stop thinking, and simply pay attention just long enough to actually see what you're looking at, rather than what you 'think' you're looking at.. It's a bit disingenuous to misrepresent what people 'say', i.e.: "TZU says", then seek absolution through disclaiming your own participation by the illusion of not knowing what you typed.. just have a regular ol' conversation, sincere and open to new understandings.. mind/word-games are so counterproductive, they're some of the major reasons beliefs and illusions persist in an age when clarity is available without persecution from those that benefit from beliefs and illusions.. Be well.. Sorry TZU....it was more metaphor than quote, a story, I should have changed the names to protect the innocent ;-) And when I said that I don't know what I typed, I did not mean it in the literal sense, I meant that I don't actually know anything that I had just typed to be true or false. I'll edit Edit complete ;-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:17:18 GMT -5
Wow, this exchange really makes me sit forward in my seat...the baby did it! They just look innocent. Next thought I had is well, there is no such thing as 'innocence' just as there is no such thing as 'guilt' - its opposite. Fascinating. Indeed, I rez with that last bit, Ag. It is through the guilt/innocence paradigm that the idea of innocence arises in the first place. Ultimately, they're both dualistic concepts. Then maybe we should stick to the nondualistic concepts?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:21:34 GMT -5
I spose that's a valid point, as long as the mind never moves again. However, you won't be nearly as functional as an infant, who's mind actually IS moving. The moment yours moves, everything you think you know will come flooding back, and you'll start typing about it on spearachuul forums. And the lord sayeth, still your mind and hire personal assistants!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 21:22:02 GMT -5
<capt_obvious>Well you see you kind of just did right there by speaking </capt_obvious> It's what Bluenigma mean when they ask you "do you know you exist?" and there's a really comic version of this that happens when tzu tells enigma that he just made a choice to say that there is no volitional person. Seems that the mind's tendency is to move to more and more spacious ideas....we come to the idea that "I am everything" or that there is Universal Oneness as Existance....but that's still not a spacious enough of an idea, so we go to ""I do not exist, and nothing exists" and that there is no volition, no doing, which seems to be the most spacious idea.....so far. Kinda like we keep buying bigger and bigger houses that are increasingly sparsely furnished. "A" says his house is the best because it includes all of Existence and all activity (it's the BIG party house) , "B" says his house is the best because its the biggest and is utterly empty of everything and everyone and all activity, it's the chill house, full of peace. For the mystics out there, "A's" house is the house of Tantra (an all inclusion), and "B's" house is the house of Yoga (an all exclusion). It's just all ideas though, things that people "know". I don't know any of that though, not even what if what I just typed is true or false. ;-) Yes I see what you mean here and I can offer a similar interpretation. From having conversed with both enigma and tzu, I'll risk a written expression in ideas and thoughts of my interpretation of what they've described as their direct experience and sense of identity with respect to the subject/object split. From what I understand, enigma makes an either/or choice between the two and describes all as subject, while tzu describes his experience in terms of both/and, identifying himself as an individual that is an interconnected part of a whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 21:27:12 GMT -5
Indeed, I rez with that last bit, Ag. It is through the guilt/innocence paradigm that the idea of innocence arises in the first place. Ultimately, they're both dualistic concepts. Then maybe we should stick to the nondualistic concepts? Hehe....yeah, let's spin the wheels of the car backwards, instead of forwards lol Seems like there's a lot of disagreeing on which way to spin the wheels I vote that we all get out of the car and go for a walk.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:31:59 GMT -5
Greetings.. I know that I exist, and I don't seem to have the word lawyering problems that others have in saying oneness is true. Everything else collapses into a little greasy spot and nothing is ultimately true. I've said that a gazillion times so I don't have much patience with questions about 'my beliefs' and how I know all the wonderful stuff I know and how often I say I don't know something. When no idea is ultimately true, all those questions are irrelevant. I do play around with insights and opinions, and usually preface it with 'As I see it' or 'seems to me', which could be a clue that it's merely a perspective. However, if you have an agenda to put me in my place or make me wrong you might not notice that I'm not going around declaring absolute truths, just questioning the truth of the ideas others seem to be holding onto. You claim that "Oneness is truth", and state that with no option for what is actually happening.. Be well.. Axshuly, nothing's happening.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:43:49 GMT -5
The idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' both presupposes and affirms the existence of an alleged 'ultimate', when 'ultimate' is just another idea to be bandied and played with. As such, 'nothing is ultimately true' is both contradictory and deceitful. I guess it could be argued that the idea of an 'ultimate' is also not 'ultimately true' but...oh look...an 'ultimate' is still affirmed and posited there as something more than just an idea. If we are going to talk about the nature of ideas, then Niz nails it with ''everything is a play of ideas''. Notice that an alleged 'ultimate' is not affirmed in that statement, so ideas are left floundering amongst themselves without some kind of alleged foundation to support them. And the point of the realization is to leave both knowledge and mind floundering, i.e not supported nor backed up by some kind of actually existing 'ultimate'. By the way Steve, its good to see you on the forum. TMT
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:45:23 GMT -5
The idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' both presupposes and affirms the existence of an alleged 'ultimate', when 'ultimate' is just another idea to be bandied and played with. As such, 'nothing is ultimately true' is both contradictory and deceitful. I guess it could be argued that the idea of an 'ultimate' is also not 'ultimately true' but...oh look...an 'ultimate' is still affirmed and posited there as something more than just an idea. If we are going to talk about the nature of ideas, then Niz nails it with ''everything is a play of ideas''. Notice that an alleged 'ultimate' is not affirmed in that statement, so ideas are left floundering amongst themselves without some kind of alleged foundation to support them. And the point of the realization is to leave both knowledge and mind floundering, i.e not supported nor backed up by some kind of actually existing 'ultimate'. By the way Steve, its good to see you on the forum. Hi Andrew, and thanks, You make a good point, the statement I made earlier: "in my experience, EVERYTHING is true, or EVERYTHING is false, except that from some perspectives SOME things are true while some things ARE false." is definitely a "knowing" of a kind of truth about something lol Thanks for showing me that I was "knowing" something there. when clearly, I don't know How do you know that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 21:48:41 GMT -5
Actually, in my very next post, I think you'll find that I "forgave" the idea of an infants innocence. And by forgave, I mean in the Aramiac meaning of the word shbag, which Jesus used a lot. Shbag has been translated into English as "forgive", but in aramaic (the languagetgatjesusspoke) it's more accurate translation is: to let go of, to undo, to untie. That might explain the whole forgiveness obsession in ACIM, which I never really understood.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:17:19 GMT -5
That is a contradiction that proves the opposite. Just the liars paradox JLU ... just a statement that words and ideas about the ineffable can only point at the ineffable indirectly. It's the same dilemma that Figs and Andrew encounter repeatedly. It occurs to me that peeps prone to analyzing the finger don't recognize that something is being pointed to that mind isn't going to be able to fully wrap itself around. Something like 'Nothing is ultimately true' or 'oneness is not the integration of parts' may not sound like pointers to realizations. They're taken to be mental conclusions and so mind feels free to analyze and logically argue them and ask for proof and such.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:31:51 GMT -5
Hehehe yeah, "I don't know, and being cool with not knowing"....seems to collapse everything down to that greasy lil spot that Enigma talks about. cept it doesn't seem "greasy", and I can't actually identify a "spot" Indeed, I've long been rather offended by the advisement to become a grease spot. Which is worse, collapsing into a little greasy spot, or being 'already dead'?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:37:53 GMT -5
Indeed, I've long been rather offended by the advisement to become a grease spot. I think he could've chosen some other phrase instead of 'greasy spot' - sounds like he's contemptful of that 'greasy spot' - sounds very yucky. Geez, it's just a little silliness.
|
|