Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 2:21:26 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 Yeah I read that religion was rooted in the word religio, which means to bind.
Just found this link: forward.com/articles/10776/roots-of-religion/
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 2:27:07 GMT -5
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. The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 2:29:41 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'. Not accurate means not correct (and similar to not true). I have no use for the word 'ultimate' there and like I said, I have no issue with engaging with duality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 2:31:28 GMT -5
When he says "not accurate", he means 'not ultimately true'. 'swhat it sounds like ta' me anyways! Is it possible that you also believe that there IS an 'ultimate' or 'ineffable' beyond the realm of ideas? Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying that I believe there isn't!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 2:34:02 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 yup I can imagine it did a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 6:37:43 GMT -5
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 please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 7:31:57 GMT -5
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 Yeah I read that religion was rooted in the word religio, which means to bind.
Just found this link: forward.com/articles/10776/roots-of-religion/If it were anything but Latin, I wouldn't correct, but religio does not mean to bind. You're thinking of religo. Different term, though religio may have been derived from religo, going back to the Etruscans. Religio basically means "respect for what is sacred", which is essentially what it means today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 7:39:40 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. Yes it was all fun, in fact I bow to your good sense of humor! It was a hilarious bit of news and the guy in the photo looked a bit like that photo you posted a while back of yourself, so the universe conspired to make a little joke. Thanks for playing. And welcome back! Why not change your name to andrewperm?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 7:45:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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'. Isn't the everything/nothing thingy just the two sides of the same coin thingy? You guys seem to be arguing for one side of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 7:49:53 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. You mean, you're NOT the infamous church licker?! Aw, man. And, here, I'd gone and told all my friends that I knew that guy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 7:58:30 GMT -5
When he says "not accurate", he means 'not ultimately true'. Not accurate means not correct (and similar to not true). I have no use for the word 'ultimate' there and like I said, I have no issue with engaging with duality. The idea/thought -- "no idea/thought is ultimately true" -- is a lyric set to John Cage's melody in 4'33. Cage's piece can be recorded with or without these lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 8:12:48 GMT -5
It just means no idea has a solid foundation. Forget the word 'ultimate' and it won't keep you up at night anymore. The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. I foresee an ongoing argument on "the concept of a contextless context is just an idea" or somethingorother coming up. Glad you're back andrew. Hope your hiatus was, shall we saaaaay, fruitlessly fruitful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 8:24:59 GMT -5
It just means no idea has a solid foundation. Forget the word 'ultimate' and it won't keep you up at night anymore. The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 8:30:06 GMT -5
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 please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? To be certain is to be done, as in knowing on an "experiential level" (for wont of a better phrase, but to distinguish the knowing with merely mental) that consensual reality and all the attached thingies we refer to as daily life, objectivity, rational, etc are inherently false and only Truth Is. If an onion could speak, it would likely scream and and moan expletives during the process of working with and through the mental formulation the mind has conjured up in order to explain that it "understands and does not need it". The pain/disillusion of being forever wrong/false in the face of all that IS/TRUTH is quite a spectacle. Any practice, at best, can only take the edge off those "negative but necessary feelings/experiences" of being on some path. But that there is what it is. When you realize who you think you are doesn't know (can't know) on a deep visceral level, something gives. At that point, one might say "YOU KNOW". It's not an experience per se, but a Realization, and try as it might (and it will) the mind cannot undo it. CERTAINTY. That help?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 8:49:14 GMT -5
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 please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? My interpretation is that ''not knowing'' is the arising of knowledge/understanding in any given moment without the need to attach to, or hold onto, the truth (or falsity) of any knowledge/understanding/idea. In not-knowing we don't 'start' from a place of needing to hold an idea to be true, and as such our behaviour is not informed by the need to hold the idea to be true. This attachment is usually held subconsciously i.e we are not aware that an attachment is informing our behaviour. Not-knowing does not mean that truth and falsity is no longer engaged with.
|
|