|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:44:35 GMT -5
Just the liars paradox JLU ... just a statement that words and ideas about the ineffable can only point at the ineffable indirectly. I don't see the statement 'nothing is ultimately true' as one that comments on the relationship between words/ideas and an alleged 'ineffable', I see the statement as one that comments specifically on the nature of ideas. The statement uses the idea of an 'ultimate' to talk about the nature of ideas, and this alleged 'ultimate' is posited firmly and fixedly as something more than an idea. This is a direct contradiction to the statement. As a result of this, the nature of ideas is misunderstood, and in the wake of this misunderstanding, the idea of an alleged 'ultimate' becomes a fixed belief/truth. It just means no idea has a solid foundation. Forget the word 'ultimate' and it won't keep you up at night anymore.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:52:20 GMT -5
'No idea is true' would be an accurate form of liars paradox, however, it is not quite accurate as a statement on the nature of ideas. To use the form you gave, an accurate statement might be 'no idea is true, unless it is'. By the way, that wasn't actually me church licking hehe. After reading some of the comments here I began to wonder if peeps really did think that that dude was me. Not that there is anything wrong with church licking if that floats your boat. ahhh! Max was putting us on ... should have known better! <tmt> So .... what is this concept of "accuracy" that you are seem to be invoking that is apparently untethered from the notion of truth? </tmt> When he says "not accurate", he means 'not ultimately true'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 22:56:49 GMT -5
What axchuly is nonduality consciousness? 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. Okay, but what is it?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 9, 2013 23:15:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. You claim that "Oneness is truth", and state that with no option for what is actually happening.. Be well.. Axshuly, nothing's happening. Actually everything is happening.. it only appears as if "nothing's happening" if the observer is stuck in beliefs and attachments, you know, attachments to beliefs like 'oneness' or nonduality.. or "oneness is truth".. But, this is your MO.. you claim that you're " not going around declaring absolute truths", and.. when it is revealed that you are actually doing that, you change the subject.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 23:19:29 GMT -5
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. My point was that concepts are dualistic by nature, and every now and then somebody in the room jumps up and says 'But wait, that's a dualistic concept!'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 9, 2013 23:24:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Axshuly, nothing's happening. Actually everything is happening.. it only appears as if "nothing's happening" if the observer is stuck in beliefs and attachments, you know, attachments to beliefs like 'oneness' or nonduality.. or "oneness is truth".. But, this is your MO.. you claim that you're " not going around declaring absolute truths", and.. when it is revealed that you are actually doing that, you change the subject.. Be well.. It's the absolute truth that I do not go around declaring absolute truths. It doesn't appear that nothing is happening. It appears that all sorts of stuff is happening, but without time, space, inside and outside as actualities, there can't really be 'happenings'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 23:29:48 GMT -5
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. FWIW, I vouch for JLU, that doesn't apply to him ... don't want to put words in his mouth beyond that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 23:35:15 GMT -5
ahhh! Max was putting us on ... should have known better! <tmt> So .... what is this concept of "accuracy" that you are seem to be invoking that is apparently untethered from the notion of truth? </tmt> When he says "not accurate", he means 'not ultimately true'. 'swhat it sounds like ta' me anyways!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2013 23:39:36 GMT -5
ahhh! Max was putting us on ... should have known better! <tmt> So .... what is this concept of "accuracy" that you are seem to be invoking that is apparently untethered from the notion of truth? </tmt> 'Accuracy' is indeed tethered to 'truth', but I have no issue with engaging with dualities such as accuracy/inaccuracy, truth/falsity, correctness/incorrectness. As you are aware I'm sure, the moment we speak meaningfully we are engaging with those dualities, and I don't often have an issue with that. In my perspective, there can be truth and there can be falsity, there can be both and there can be neither. Its not clear cut (unless it is) though this seeming confusion has its own quality of clear cuttedness. Although the statement 'no idea is true' is self-referencing, I'm not sure it quite points to absolute subjectivity. I might be wrong, but I thought Max understood that the dude was not me, but maybe what I said as a response lent to the idea that I am a church licker hehe. Thinking back without doing a review the guy in the picture and vid bore a superficial resemblance to that one pic I saw of you. The guy in the vid didn't sound at all as I would expect you to come off on tape ... but this is all memory on my part!
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 9, 2013 23:47:22 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.. This is not a word game. So, tzuality (OK, this part is) is still admonishing people to pay attention, stop thinking,,,just long enough to see what you're looking at, rather than what you 'think' you're looking at. In the same breath, tzuality also states that separation exists (I guess without thinking it does), that oneness is too conceptual of a pointer to be of any value, and all that anyone has to do is just let go. Is the idea to clarify that people, who unknowingly exist separately as thought constructs, need to look at and let go of something they think they have? Should they do this before or after they stop thinking just long enough to see what's being looked at? There's a very minute layer of boundary in here, and the whole thing could bust at any second.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2013 0:15:52 GMT -5
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. Dear Dude/Dudette, Yup. That's the usual hick-up, or as I call it, where certain folks tend to 'hit a wall' over and over again. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2013 0:33:52 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but I thought Max understood that the dude was not me, but maybe what I said as a response lent to the idea that I am a church licker hehe. Dear Dude/Dudette, Thanks for clearing this up. Seemed very odd. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2013 1:24:04 GMT -5
there are three people posting here regularly that seem to have absolute certainty, and that's a knot/puzzle that's fun to pick at. Blue Enigma TzuMy interaction with Max recently helped me get rid of a foundational idea, and hopefully by picking at these guys ideas it will jujitsu one again....but if not, maybe my picking at idea knots will undo one of their ideas.... Tzu I don't know that well But as for BlueEnigma, In many many years of posting, and what must be tens of thousands of posts, I don't recall ever seeing Enigma not having the answer, never once saw him say anything approximating "I don't know" Gosh, that's a whole lot of certainty that's there to pick at lol Dear Dude/Dudette, You hafta add at least ZD and Silence, too, maybe even sN. They also speak with absolute certainty. But you probably can't see that because your focus is on style and not on content. When it comes to non-duality pointers, ZD, Silence and 'BlueEnigma' may differ in style, but not in content. Tzu's content, however, has nothing in common with any of the guys I just mentioned. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2013 1:33:11 GMT -5
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. Dear Dude/Dudette, That would be the opposite of what 'religion' means. Kinda funny how that turned out. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 2:15:27 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 The problem isn't so much that its a contradictory and deceitful thing to say, the problem is how you then go on to use the idea that 'nothing is ultimately true' to uphold knowledge.
|
|