|
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2013 21:40:44 GMT -5
kinda' looks like snoopy! Doing a twirl on the ice pond? long as Tzu' don't show up to map the coastline he should be ok!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 21:46:17 GMT -5
Doing a twirl on the ice pond? long as Tzu' don't show up to map the coastline he should be ok!
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 13, 2013 21:51:21 GMT -5
If "Tzu" is conditioning only, then what is the not-"Tzu" that is being conditioned? Oh, that's God. (Or the Holy Hippo, if you prefer) If the labels don't make a difference, we could call it "Tzu"... The personal identity within the body mind, I'm fine with chalking up to completely conditioning, and I think Tzujanli can agree somewhat with that aspect of things. Then there is the body-mind itself which appears to have autonomy and its unique view into the fish-tank of consciousness. I feel like that when Tzu is talking about the person existing separately, he's focussed on the body-mind. The separateness comes in from seeing the autonomy, the unique perspective, the apparent distance between his mind and others, and the lack of telepathic soup. The conditioning (software) animated the body-mind (hardware) to yield something which seems to have autonomy, agency, individual intention,etc. Which is where separateness becomes a potentially valid description. How can you be just the conditioning? Conditioning can't exist without that which is being conditioned. Do you view yourself as just conditioning?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 22:06:05 GMT -5
Note to self: Don't make any appointments with Andrew. Andrew has wrestled his common sense to the ground and is currently strangling it to death. hehehe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 22:07:42 GMT -5
Note to self: Don't make any appointments with Andrew. Andrew has wrestled his common sense to the ground and is currently strangling it to death. No....seriously....that's gotta be one of the best lines this forum has ever seen, every clubhouse has to appreciate that one lol
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 13, 2013 22:11:41 GMT -5
Andrew has wrestled his common sense to the ground and is currently strangling it to death. LMAO you guys are in rate form tonight....good laughs hehehe Maybe it's got something to do with the recent legalization of pot in Colorado...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 13, 2013 22:18:24 GMT -5
Oh, that's God. (Or the Holy Hippo, if you prefer) If the labels don't make a difference, we could call it "Tzu"... The personal identity within the body mind, I'm fine with chalking up to completely conditioning, and I think Tzujanli can agree somewhat with that aspect of things. Then there is the body-mind itself which appears to have autonomy and its unique view into the fish-tank of consciousness. I feel like that when Tzu is talking about the person existing separately, he's focussed on the body-mind. The separateness comes in from seeing the autonomy, the unique perspective, the apparent distance between his mind and others, and the lack of telepathic soup. The conditioning (software) animated the body-mind (hardware) to yield something which seems to have autonomy, agency, individual intention,etc. Which is where separateness becomes a potentially valid description. How can you be just the conditioning? Conditioning can't exist without that which is being conditioned. Do you view yourself as just conditioning? I view myself as the Holy Hippo, the same way I view you. The mind/body is an expression of that Hippo intelligence which we could say is present in the mind/body, but it would be deceiving. The mind/body is appearing in the Hippo. The mind/body is appearing in ME. As such, the mind/body isn't separate from what I am, and it's MY intelligence (the Holy Hippo) that drives it. I don't have a mind. I don't have thoughts and desires. This all appears as I engage a bifurcating process of an imaginative nature that results in a particular perspective that we call a person. The thoughts and feelings that occur are a direct result of the cumulative experience of that perspective as it experiences the expression of MY imagination. It becomes a dream character, MY dream character, and just like a nightly dream character, it has no thoughts of it's own, no independence in any way, no volition. It has no substance beyond thought. The thoughts of the mind/body are MY thoughts. The actions are MY actions. There is nothing existent in any universe but that singular intelligence that I am.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 13, 2013 23:03:51 GMT -5
Yanno, you two really do crack me up, sometimes. Glad to see you back, A. Was missing the entertainment. Yeah, but do you know what day it is? Depends on what part of the world we're talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 23:18:37 GMT -5
Yeah, but do you know what day it is? Depends on what part of the world we're talking about. Hah
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 14, 2013 0:07:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oh, that's God. (Or the Holy Hippo, if you prefer) If the labels don't make a difference, we could call it "Tzu"... The personal identity within the body mind, I'm fine with chalking up to completely conditioning, and I think Tzujanli can agree somewhat with that aspect of things. Then there is the body-mind itself which appears to have autonomy and its unique view into the fish-tank of consciousness. I feel like that when Tzu is talking about the person existing separately, he's focussed on the body-mind. The separateness comes in from seeing the autonomy, the unique perspective, the apparent distance between his mind and others, and the lack of telepathic soup. The conditioning (software) animated the body-mind (hardware) to yield something which seems to have autonomy, agency, individual intention,etc. Which is where separateness becomes a potentially valid description. How can you be just the conditioning? Conditioning can't exist without that which is being conditioned. Do you view yourself as just conditioning? Hi Top: I wish you could read and comprehend all of what i post.. i state clearly, one AND many, part AND whole, yet there is a persistence among several to craft arguments against only a 'part' of what i post.. and, to be more clear, IF there were no 'ideas about' oneness and nonduality, i wouldn't be posting 'about' parts and many/individuals.. Your argument for 'separateness' as a potentially valid description cannot be tolerated by Phil's beliefs.. he will craft an elaborate anti-belief, rather than see/experience no belief.. it is the 'no belief' that he fears most.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 14, 2013 0:08:10 GMT -5
Still itches, huh? Shocker. I have no interest and inclination to stand idiocy gladly on the forum at the moment. Probably best for both of us if you talk to people that don't think you are an idiot. I'm not sure what you mean here by absolutely subjective. It's not just your personal opinion that it's Thursday. It really is Thursday. If you have an important appointment on Thursday, it might be wise to buy into the truth that today is Thursday. In the context of your appointment, I swear to the Holy Hippo that it really IS Thursday. I don't either. I don't even know what that would look like. No, it's wrong for lots of other reasons that have nothing to do with how free you are. You can prove that its true that its a Thursday? How are you going to prove that? Don't get me wrong, I experience it to be true that its Thursday but just because I experience it to be true, doesn't make it necessarily the truth. You claim that it really actually IS Thursday? What evidence can you show that will prove that? Is there any evidence that you can provide that isn't subjective/relative i.e. that isn't defined by other ideas? Even if I have an appointment on Thursday, and I experience it to be true that its a Thursday, I am not bought into the truth that its a Thursday i.e. I am not attached to the truth that its a Thursday. And that doesn't mean that I believe its true within some context that its a Thursday but can see that its not 'ultimately true' that its a Thursday!! It just means I don't experience a need to believe ideas to be true/false. Collapsing ideas into a greasy spot is the same as 'seeing that no idea is ultimately true'. They both require a fixed truth to be held. Life's a very funny thing.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 14, 2013 0:19:55 GMT -5
Note to self: Don't make any appointments with Andrew. Andrew has wrestled his common sense to the ground and is currently strangling it to death. Classic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 14, 2013 2:06:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. If the labels don't make a difference, we could call it "Tzu"... The personal identity within the body mind, I'm fine with chalking up to completely conditioning, and I think Tzujanli can agree somewhat with that aspect of things. Then there is the body-mind itself which appears to have autonomy and its unique view into the fish-tank of consciousness. I feel like that when Tzu is talking about the person existing separately, he's focussed on the body-mind. The separateness comes in from seeing the autonomy, the unique perspective, the apparent distance between his mind and others, and the lack of telepathic soup. The conditioning (software) animated the body-mind (hardware) to yield something which seems to have autonomy, agency, individual intention,etc. Which is where separateness becomes a potentially valid description. How can you be just the conditioning? Conditioning can't exist without that which is being conditioned. Do you view yourself as just conditioning? Hi Top: I wish you could read and comprehend all of what i post.. i state clearly, one AND many, part AND whole, yet there is a persistence among several to craft arguments against only a 'part' of what i post.. and, to be more clear, IF there were no 'ideas about' oneness and nonduality, i wouldn't be posting 'about' parts and many/individuals.. Your argument for 'separateness' as a potentially valid description cannot be tolerated by Phil's beliefs.. he will craft an elaborate anti-belief, rather than see/experience no belief.. it is the 'no belief' that he fears most.. Be well.. 'No belief' in separation would be perfect. Can you let go of that belief?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 2:15:45 GMT -5
Yes, but I only play with the idea of context (just as I might play with the idea of ultimate/absolute). I don't think it really IS true that there really IS a context in which it really IS Thursday! Yanno, you two really do crack me up, sometimes. Glad to see you back, A. Was missing the entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 2:18:23 GMT -5
Let's that that practical example. I have no issue at all with saying that its true that it's Thursday in the US (and UK). But I am not invested in the 'truth' of that idea. NOT because I think ideas are not ultimately true, but because I have a) realized the absolutely subjective nature of ideas/things and b) I have released the need to buy into the truth/falsity of ideas. I have no need or interest in collapsing ideas down to an alleged 'ultimate'. Okay, so maybe I'm not totally free of conditioned need and fear, but that's okay, and just because I'm not totally free doesn't make my argument wrong. And there is little interest here in trying to NOT know stuff when knowing stuff happens. Someone asks me whether its Thursday and I say 'yes'. Simple. Unless I am on a spiritual forum and trying to illustrate the absolutely subjective nature of ideas. o fer crissakes ... it's thrusday ... Unless its not! (your misspelling is interesting by the way).
|
|