|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 13, 2013 12:34:35 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I see it, you live almost entirely in a fantasy world of your mind, projecting outward everything that you know yourself to be within, and which you have no way of avoiding. Some of it is quite beautiful, and much of it rather ugly. I have no way of knowing how that's working out for you, but I guess if it wasn't, something would change. Yes, as you see it.. you are projecting your own conflict between what you think you believe, and what actually 'is'.. through the eyes of your conflicted nature you go at others with tangled illusions hoping to find justification for your beliefs, but.. there are no justifications for self-deception, so until you 'let go', you'll keep weaving your illusions and believing that the more people agree with you, the 'righter' you become.. just let go.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 12:37:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. And it can't possibly be true, right? And so you wait for everyone else to let go. How very open and honest of you. There is no evidence that 'oneness' is true, or that separation is false.. you keep saying those things, but you won't have a "very open and honest" discussion about it.. your prerequisite to a discussion is that it must be on 'your' terms, and that what 'you' believe is right.. You say "oneness is truth", what is it about 'oneness' that makes it 'true', aside from your 'belief'.. ? You say "separation is false", but.. you tell others, others that have separate and private mindscapes from yours, that they are wrong if they understand separation as accurately describing what is actually happening.. if oneness is true, and separation is false, there is no-one to convince that they are 'wrong' and that you are 'right', but.. you contradict your own beliefs by continuously preaching a message of oneness to those that don't exist by virtue of the beliefs you say you believe.. Be well.. We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Oneness doesn't deny the presence of individuated perspectives that can form the basis of communication and change. That's what experiencing is, but experience happening doesn't mean there is a separate, volitional experiencer. There is only existence itself(intelligence, being, whatever) experiencing every perspective. It doesn't mean a particular individuated perspective can know what the picture is over your left shoulder (personally, I think it's a velvet Elvis), nor does it mean it's impossible or pointless to communicate with another perspective. There is no contradiction. Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 12:48:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. There is no evidence that 'oneness' is true, or that separation is false.. you keep saying those things, but you won't have a "very open and honest" discussion about it.. your prerequisite to a discussion is that it must be on 'your' terms, and that what 'you' believe is right.. You say "oneness is truth", what is it about 'oneness' that makes it 'true', aside from your 'belief'.. ? You say "separation is false", but.. you tell others, others that have separate and private mindscapes from yours, that they are wrong if they understand separation as accurately describing what is actually happening.. if oneness is true, and separation is false, there is no-one to convince that they are 'wrong' and that you are 'right', but.. you contradict your own beliefs by continuously preaching a message of oneness to those that don't exist by virtue of the beliefs you say you believe.. Be well.. We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 13:06:36 GMT -5
everyone else has...... story..... that says more about the storyteller than the character. lol Nicely put......where does the following factor into this?: As I see it, you live almost entirely in a fantasy world of your mind, projecting outward everything that you know yourself to be within, and which you have no way of avoiding.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 13:16:42 GMT -5
It's not true that there's nothing to know so much as it's false that there IS something to know. Mind tricks itself by making stuff up, and when somebody reveals that illusion, mind thinks some truth is being declared about the absence of what it made up. Its not necessarily false there there is something to know. I think we looked at ideas and saw the same thing basically i.e. that ideas define each other and therefore have no solid foundation. Out of that you came up with 'nothing is ultimately true'. Out of that I came up with 'its all subjective' (which is self-referencing). So when I look at ideas/things, I see an absolute subjectivity. A play of ideas. I see form that is empty of inherent existence Yes. No. Not sure what you mean by foundation, but no, I think not. No. Can't do much more than collapse it into a little greasy spot. Of course it doesn't. How can truth/falsity be outside of ideas? The picture painting that Figs does, and your mental spinning about what others are thinking/saying/needing, seem to be like Yin and Yang versions of the same process of mis-characterization. The need to make certain peeps wrong seems to be the motivation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 13:20:35 GMT -5
It's a pointer to the fact that ideas are just ideas. What it is not is an invitation to spin with it and say, 'But that's just an idea.....and that.....and that! What if we replace "No idea is ultimately true" with "Nothing lasts forever" ? Any chance the word-lawyers will be more lenient with it? We would have to negotiate a plea bargain, and that could take months, but we could set the wheels in motion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 13:25:20 GMT -5
We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this. yeah....there seems to be a defending of positionalities, or perspectives. I use to defend a similar perspective that TZU is now, but now I'm closer to Enigma's view in my most common personal experience.....seems to me that ALL that exists is God with no individuation.....but that's largely because I spend most of my time only having ONE definition for every phenomena, and that ONE definition is GOD....Only God everywhere but it seems obvious to me that this is a perspective that I have adopted, and does not negate or invalidate TZU's or Enigma's perspective " that separation exists within wholeness", or Enigma's view that " Experience occurs within non-existence". (it's remarkable how close those perspectives actually are really, when said side by side like that :-)) What I don't get, is this propensity to attach to one's current perspective as THE truth, while calling other's perspectives a delusion.....seems like either they are all truth, or all delusions, whichever you prefer, and as such, your perspective is really neither true nor false, but rather.....an apparent choice. And thats what's really happening in the midst of all the contention, is that folks just don't want to honor or respect the other's "choice" of perspective lol its basically just a kind of intolerance of each others current chosen perspective. :-) The Koran say's its good to discuss religion, but not to argue about religion, because God gave humanity different religions so that man may know GOD better.....Seems like good general advice that can be applied to a lot of things....so perhaps, if the contention could become discussion, we all have an opportunity to know our nature better, or to experience THIS with more peace, joy, and clarity....that is, if we are open to it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 13, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. There is no evidence that 'oneness' is true, or that separation is false.. you keep saying those things, but you won't have a "very open and honest" discussion about it.. your prerequisite to a discussion is that it must be on 'your' terms, and that what 'you' believe is right.. You say "oneness is truth", what is it about 'oneness' that makes it 'true', aside from your 'belief'.. ? You say "separation is false", but.. you tell others, others that have separate and private mindscapes from yours, that they are wrong if they understand separation as accurately describing what is actually happening.. if oneness is true, and separation is false, there is no-one to convince that they are 'wrong' and that you are 'right', but.. you contradict your own beliefs by continuously preaching a message of oneness to those that don't exist by virtue of the beliefs you say you believe.. Be well.. We can't go very far exploring this without some actual insight beyond the thoughts dictated by your conditioning, and yes I know you believe your insight is superior to that of others here, and therein lies the problemo. Oneness doesn't deny the presence of individuated perspectives that can form the basis of communication and change. That's what experiencing is, but experience happening doesn't mean there is a separate, volitional experiencer. There is only existence itself(intelligence, being, whatever) experiencing every perspective. It doesn't mean a particular individuated perspective can know what the picture is over your left shoulder (personally, I think it's a velvet Elvis), nor does it mean it's impossible or pointless to communicate with another perspective. There is no contradiction. Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion. We can't go very far exploring this if you're going to create illusions with prejudicial misrepresentations about my thoughts and character.. that would be like me saying: you hold onto your beliefs about oneness like a child holds onto their security blanket, because you're terrorized of actual liberation, terrorized of not having some guru self-image.. Oneness is a thought/idea that people use to wrap-up reality with so they can make-up stories about it.. stories like: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion".. you say it, but there's no 'oneness', you say it's a 'pointer', but it only points to your belief that your idea is true.. you say "separation is an illusion", and try to invalidate the evidence to the contrary, but the evidence is self-evident and so you say words that represent beliefs, but which have no meaning apart from the belief .. i see no sincerity in you exploring what is actually happening, you are here yo defend your beliefs.. i.e.: "Oneness is the case. Separation is an illusion."Aside from any other snake-oil salesman's claim that it's not true the non-believer because 'you don't believe', or because 'you haven't had the realization' that the rest of the superior oneness disciples have had.. aside from 'man-behind-the-curtain' claims, what 'is' oneness other than an idea? why do you see and experience separate volitional entities functioning as a collective whole, and feel compelled to attach to an 'idea' that is conjured-up to describe the belief you 'want' to believe? then, feel threatened enough to create illusions to defend the beliefs? you 'are' a separate volitional person functioning with others as collective whole.. you 'can' exist apart from the conditioning.. snowflake, ocean, water.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 13:39:06 GMT -5
Its not necessarily false there there is something to know. I think we looked at ideas and saw the same thing basically i.e. that ideas define each other and therefore have no solid foundation. Out of that you came up with 'nothing is ultimately true'. Out of that I came up with 'its all subjective' (which is self-referencing). So when I look at ideas/things, I see an absolute subjectivity. A play of ideas. I see form that is empty of inherent existence Yes. No. Not sure what you mean by foundation, but no, I think not. No. Can't do much more than collapse it into a little greasy spot. Of course it doesn't. How can truth/falsity be outside of ideas? The picture painting that Figs does, and your mental spinning about what others are thinking/saying/needing, seem to be like Yin and Yang versions of the same process of mis-characterization. The need to make certain peeps wrong seems to be the motivation. Firstly, truth/falsity may OR may not be outside of ideas. It can be seen that it is inside of ideas (as you see yourself), but that doesn't mean that it is NOT outside of ideas. It MAY be. It MAY not be. The 2 key words that undermine truth/falsity are 'maybe' and 'possibly'. Secondly, 'nothing is ultimately true' does posit a fixed ultimate. Even if you say that its not ultimately true that 'nothing is ultimately true', there is still a fixed ultimate. Undermining truth/falsity is not about collapsing truth/falsity into an alleged 'greasy spot' (which is really the same as 'ultimate'), because in order to do that, it has to be held to be true that there is a 'greasy spot'! Therefore truth/falsity is not undermined. Undermining truth/falsity is about recognizing that ideas/things are absolutely subjective i.e. subjective/relative to the degree that even that subjectivity/relativity is subjective/relative! Yes, there is a movement here right now to show you that you are wrong!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 13:40:55 GMT -5
Obviously Tzu doesn't need any help here, but that last sentence could be reflected right back at you, eh? What you call individuated perspectives might be called separate perspectives by others. For the purposes of discussing nondual philosophy/theory, the word 'separate' has garnered a technical definition with specific boundaries. Tzu does not accept the theory or the boundaries given to some of it's terms. Methinks part of the issue is this. yeah....there seems to be a defending of positionalities, or perspectives. I use to defend a similar perspective that TZU is now, but now I'm closer to Enigma's view in my most common personal experience.....seems to me that ALL that exists is God with no individuation.....but that's largely because I spend most of my time only having ONE definition for every phenomena, and that ONE definition is GOD....Only God everywhere but it seems obvious to me that this is a perspective that I have adopted, and does not negate or invalidate TZU's or Enigma's perspective " that separation exists within wholeness", or Enigma's view that " Experience occurs within non-existence". (it's remarkable how close those perspectives actually are really, when said side by side like that :-)) What I don't get, is this propensity to attach to one's current perspective as THE truth, while calling other's perspectives a delusion.....seems like either they are all truth, or all delusions, whichever you prefer, and as such, your perspective is really neither true nor false, but rather.....an apparent choice. And thats what's really happening in the midst of all the contention, is that folks just don't want to honor or respect the other's "choice" of perspective lol its basically just a kind of intolerance of each others current chosen perspective. :-) The Koran say's its good to discuss religion, but not to argue about religion, because God gave humanity different religions so that man may know GOD better.....so perhaps, if the contention could become discussion, we all have an opportunity to know our nature better, or to experience THIS with more peace, joy, and clarity....that is, if we are open to it. This is a discussion forum. That's what we're doing. It is sometimes contentious and sometimes not. For myself, I come here to get help understanding terms, pointers, literature, etc. I ask questions, see what happens. Also, of course, there's the kabuki theater. That can be entertaining too. And finally, there's all the stuff related to strengthening my own ego (Mr. Blue will help illuminate this shortly, I'm sure!)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 13:59:05 GMT -5
Its not necessarily false there there is something to know. I think we looked at ideas and saw the same thing basically i.e. that ideas define each other and therefore have no solid foundation. Out of that you came up with 'nothing is ultimately true'. Out of that I came up with 'its all subjective' (which is self-referencing). So when I look at ideas/things, I see an absolute subjectivity. A play of ideas. I see form that is empty of inherent existence and this emptiness is empty of emptiness hehe. What you see is a fixed 'ultimate'. In my frame of reference, there is not necessarily a foundation. In yours, there is. In my frame of reference, there is no fixed belief. In yours, there is. I carbonfreezehansolo with "not necessarily." This fits nicely under the certainty, or not, theme. While it's true that "not necessarily" can be attached to anything, however, I'm open to the possibility that this is just another form of self-deception -- identification to doubt and skepticism, for example. But that's me. I don't claim any modicum of realization either, just going on basic reasoning and doubt. What is curious to me, andrew, is that you claim to be fairly highly realized and also share this skeptical view. And what you say in this post about 'it's all subjective' is pretty much the exact same thing I've heard your arch nemesis enigma say. It makes me wonder if your emphasis on 'not necessarily' is again more about your rivalry with enigma. I still don't see how 'it still posits truth/falsity outside of ideas' follows from 'no idea is ultimately true.' The latter is just a paradox. If anything it points to the fact that the human experience is wrought with contradiction. But it's true, truth/falsity is not undermined. Truth and falsity happen, given a proper context. But paradox happens too. Again, this is stuff you agree with I think, which makes me wonder what the source of disagreement is. And this is where I wonder if its sour grapes or something.Yes, that's my perception of it too, though I don't think A is so much of a sour grapes guy usually. Within the contexts that mind generally operates, paradox will be encountered repeatedly, but it's the result of the boundaries formed by these narrow contexts, and so it amounts to mental confusion. We essentially define the world with a context, and the moment we try to reach beyond those boundaries, the context doesn't work anymore. From the perspective of the larger context, there is no paradox.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 14:17:07 GMT -5
I carbonfreezehansolo with "not necessarily." This fits nicely under the certainty, or not, theme. While it's true that "not necessarily" can be attached to anything, however, I'm open to the possibility that this is just another form of self-deception -- identification to doubt and skepticism, for example. But that's me. I don't claim any modicum of realization either, just going on basic reasoning and doubt. What is curious to me, andrew, is that you claim to be fairly highly realized and also share this skeptical view. And what you say in this post about 'it's all subjective' is pretty much the exact same thing I've heard your arch nemesis enigma say. It makes me wonder if your emphasis on 'not necessarily' is again more about your rivalry with enigma. I still don't see how 'it still posits truth/falsity outside of ideas' follows from 'no idea is ultimately true.' The latter is just a paradox. If anything it points to the fact that the human experience is wrought with contradiction. But it's true, truth/falsity is not undermined. Truth and falsity happen, given a proper context. But paradox happens too. Again, this is stuff you agree with I think, which makes me wonder what the source of disagreement is. And this is where I wonder if its sour grapes or something. I was using the word 'necessarily' to talk about this before I met Enigma, but the 'necessarily' is quite crucial. There MAY be a foundation...or there may not be. There MAY be an 'ultimate'....or there may not be. There MAY be a ground of being....or there may not be. It MAY be true that Awareness is prior or it may not be. Its not provable either way. Its not necessarily true either way. Nothing is necessarily true (including that statement). Of course, I could talk about what I experience, but just because I experience something, doesn't make it necessarily true! There is a quality of certainty within this ambiguity and apparent uncertainty, but its not the kind of certainty that comes with knowing something to be true beyond all doubt. Enigma may say 'its all subjective', but he insists on positing a ground, a foundation, an ultimate, a dreamer. As I see it, the dominance of mind is hidden behind a facade/disguise of not-knowing. Every 'non-dual' idea has to be seen for what it is...i.e. another idea, and there may be truth to the idea or there may not be. Some of these ideas can be useful by way of breaking through old conditioned patterns of thought, but it doesn't make them necessarily true. To say that 'no idea is true' assumes that there is truth. Its not necessarily true that there is truth! Its ALL ambiguous (and that is meant to be self-recursive). In looking at the nature of ideas, it is imperative that the duality of truth/falsity be undermined. I do agree that the human experience is wrought with contradiction and that paradox happens. I think you might like to think that there is a sour grapes issue because you have said it a few times, but if you would like to do some digging you will see that in the time we have been here, Enigma has directly sought me out at least as much as I have sought him out. Even in the forum hiatus he consistently spoke of me. I'm not going to deny that he does get on my nerves sometimes though!I've never directly sought you out, Andrew, though I don't generally have an issue with chatting. The Abdrewbat signal was a joke. When I mention you I'm not trying to get your attention, just using you or our conversation as an example to make a point for some who may be trying to put the pieces together.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:13:50 GMT -5
I was using the word 'necessarily' to talk about this before I met Enigma, but the 'necessarily' is quite crucial. There MAY be a foundation...or there may not be. There MAY be an 'ultimate'....or there may not be. There MAY be a ground of being....or there may not be. It MAY be true that Awareness is prior or it may not be. Its not provable either way. Its not necessarily true either way. Nothing is necessarily true (including that statement). Of course, I could talk about what I experience, but just because I experience something, doesn't make it necessarily true! There is a quality of certainty within this ambiguity and apparent uncertainty, but its not the kind of certainty that comes with knowing something to be true beyond all doubt. Enigma may say 'its all subjective', but he insists on positing a ground, a foundation, an ultimate, a dreamer. As I see it, the dominance of mind is hidden behind a facade/disguise of not-knowing. Every 'non-dual' idea has to be seen for what it is...i.e. another idea, and there may be truth to the idea or there may not be. Some of these ideas can be useful by way of breaking through old conditioned patterns of thought, but it doesn't make them necessarily true. To say that 'no idea is true' assumes that there is truth. Its not necessarily true that there is truth! Its ALL ambiguous (and that is meant to be self-recursive). In looking at the nature of ideas, it is imperative that the duality of truth/falsity be undermined. I do agree that the human experience is wrought with contradiction and that paradox happens. I think you might like to think that there is a sour grapes issue because you have said it a few times, but if you would like to do some digging you will see that in the time we have been here, Enigma has directly sought me out at least as much as I have sought him out. Even in the forum hiatus he consistently spoke of me. I'm not going to deny that he does get on my nerves sometimes though! How can ambiguity escape the turn of the wheel? If everything is ambiguous, then nothing is. Right, ambiguous needs a non-ambiguous reference. Noticing that ideas are essentially imagination doesn't necessarily result in the uncertainty of not knowing whether something is true or not. It is whatever it is as defined within that imagined contextual structure, which may or may not be known. Is it true that it's Thursday in the US? The correct answer is not 'Gosh, I don't know, and I don't know that I don't know, and it's all an ambiguous paradox'. The correct answer is yes, it's true. It is not, however, true in other parts of the world, and it's also not some divinely ordained truth beyond these imagined structures of ideas. In a larger context, time itself is seen as an illusion, which doesn't make Thursday false, it makes it irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 13, 2013 15:20:03 GMT -5
I was using the word 'necessarily' to talk about this before I met Enigma, but the 'necessarily' is quite crucial. There MAY be a foundation...or there may not be. There MAY be an 'ultimate'....or there may not be. There MAY be a ground of being....or there may not be. It MAY be true that Awareness is prior or it may not be. Its not provable either way. Its not necessarily true either way. Nothing is necessarily true (including that statement). Of course, I could talk about what I experience, but just because I experience something, doesn't make it necessarily true! There is a quality of certainty within this ambiguity and apparent uncertainty, but its not the kind of certainty that comes with knowing something to be true beyond all doubt. Enigma may say 'its all subjective', but he insists on positing a ground, a foundation, an ultimate, a dreamer. As I see it, the dominance of mind is hidden behind a facade/disguise of not-knowing. Every 'non-dual' idea has to be seen for what it is...i.e. another idea, and there may be truth to the idea or there may not be. Some of these ideas can be useful by way of breaking through old conditioned patterns of thought, but it doesn't make them necessarily true. To say that 'no idea is true' assumes that there is truth. Its not necessarily true that there is truth! Its ALL ambiguous (and that is meant to be self-recursive). In looking at the nature of ideas, it is imperative that the duality of truth/falsity be undermined. I do agree that the human experience is wrought with contradiction and that paradox happens. I think you might like to think that there is a sour grapes issue because you have said it a few times, but if you would like to do some digging you will see that in the time we have been here, Enigma has directly sought me out at least as much as I have sought him out. Even in the forum hiatus he consistently spoke of me. I'm not going to deny that he does get on my nerves sometimes though!I 've never directly sought you out, Andrew, though I don't generally have an issue with chatting. The Abdrewbat signal was a joke. When I mention you I'm not trying to get your attention, just using you or our conversation as an example to make a point for some who may be trying to put the pieces together. When I said that, I didn't mean anything significant by it. I just meant that you challenge me as much as I challenge you. But Im pretty confident that there are times when I'm not around when you are looking for a bit of Andrew-action hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 15:20:34 GMT -5
How can ambiguity escape the turn of the wheel? If everything is ambiguous, then nothing is. Haha, yeah, the universal relativity of stuff seems to render it irrelevant :-) I like that place. Right, it doesn't become mysteriously unknowable and ambiguously paradoxical, it just becomes irrelevant. And there can be absolute certainty about that.
|
|