|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2013 2:18:41 GMT -5
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. 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. Either they've got medical maryjawhatnow in London that I didn't know 'bout or Andy was posting from his dorm room at JBU.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 2:28:58 GMT -5
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. Why haven't you been around? Why the hiatus? Hmmm. Well I wanted a break from the conversation and there was something outside the forum which required my attention, and I couldn't really give it when caught up in forum conversation. The conversation is an easy option sometimes. Addictive even. At the moment I am picking messages to respond to more than I used to.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 2:53:57 GMT -5
Amidst all the hilarity, a point has been obscured.
For a start, to prove that today is Thursday (or Friday, or any other day), first it would have to be proved what the word 'Thursday' means. How's that gonna happen? A dictionary? Go to a dictionary to look up the meaning of a word and it passes us off to other words, and then to other words, and then to other words. Ideas are free floating, they are shifting and changing, defined in relation to each other. Proof does not apply to the realm of ideas/things/form.
Sure we can play with the idea that there are fixed contexts in which knowledge is true, but this is just playing with more ideas. What you have done, E, is affirm an ultimate, posit fixed contexts in relation to that, and claim that stuff REALLY is true ('it REALLY IS Thursday' for example). You are speaking in absolute truths, though you have disguised it, even from yourself. You really don't think you speak in absolute truths, but the reason you don't think so is because you have 'seen that nothing is ultimately true', when this comes with a fixed belief. More problematically, mind remains in the driver's seat because you are unconsciously holding beliefs to be true.
People that explore non-duality are inevitably seeing some kind of foundation, a ground. The exploration ends without foundation, without ground. And yet paradoxically, there is a kind of foundation/ground in this absence of foundation/ground. The emptiness of emptiness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2013 3:02:38 GMT -5
Amidst all the hilarity, a point has been obscured. For a start, to prove that today is Thursday (or Friday, or any other day), first it would have to be proved what the word 'Thursday' means. How's that gonna happen? A dictionary? Go to a dictionary to look up the meaning of a word and it passes us off to other words, and then to other words, and then to other words. Ideas are free floating, they are shifting and changing, defined in relation to each other. Proof does not apply to the realm of ideas/things/form. Sure we can play with the idea that there are fixed contexts in which knowledge is true, but this is just playing with more ideas. What you have done, E, is affirm an ultimate, posit fixed contexts in relation to that, and claim that stuff REALLY is true ('it REALLY IS Thursday' for example). You are speaking in absolute truths, though you have disguised it, even from yourself. You really don't think you speak in absolute truths, but the reason you don't think so is because you have 'seen that nothing is ultimately true', when this comes with a fixed belief. More problematically, mind remains in the driver's seat because you are unconsciously holding beliefs to be true. People that explore non-duality are inevitably seeing some kind of foundation, a ground. The exploration ends without foundation, without ground. And yet paradoxically, there is a kind of foundation/ground in this absence of foundation/ground. The emptiness of emptiness. Andrew, it's nothing worth spending any time on man ... just a noun, a label, a consensus. There was no Thursday 10,000 years ago. No big deal man, don't worry about it!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 3:09:41 GMT -5
Amidst all the hilarity, a point has been obscured. For a start, to prove that today is Thursday (or Friday, or any other day), first it would have to be proved what the word 'Thursday' means. How's that gonna happen? A dictionary? Go to a dictionary to look up the meaning of a word and it passes us off to other words, and then to other words, and then to other words. Ideas are free floating, they are shifting and changing, defined in relation to each other. Proof does not apply to the realm of ideas/things/form. Sure we can play with the idea that there are fixed contexts in which knowledge is true, but this is just playing with more ideas. What you have done, E, is affirm an ultimate, posit fixed contexts in relation to that, and claim that stuff REALLY is true ('it REALLY IS Thursday' for example). You are speaking in absolute truths, though you have disguised it, even from yourself. You really don't think you speak in absolute truths, but the reason you don't think so is because you have 'seen that nothing is ultimately true', when this comes with a fixed belief. More problematically, mind remains in the driver's seat because you are unconsciously holding beliefs to be true. People that explore non-duality are inevitably seeing some kind of foundation, a ground. The exploration ends without foundation, without ground. And yet paradoxically, there is a kind of foundation/ground in this absence of foundation/ground. The emptiness of emptiness. Andrew, it's nothing worth spending any time on man ... just a noun, a label, a consensus. There was no Thursday 10,000 years ago. No big deal man, don't worry about it! Interesting response. I'm not worried, there is a relevant point here and I think it is worth spending time on. You are incorrect here by the way. It may NOT be just a noun, a label, a consenses, it MAY be more than that. Its not proven either way. The reason that you say that it is 'just a noun, a label, a consensus' is possibly because you believe that there really is something else other, prior, beyond. An 'ineffable'. E said it REALLY IS Thursday. I'm not saying it REALLY isn't. I'm suggesting that discovering the truth of the matter either way is gonna be tough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 3:13:01 GMT -5
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 andrew on Jun 14, 2013 3:23:13 GMT -5
Did you hear that L. It may NOT be just a noun, a label, a consensus. Its not proved either way. In saying it is just a noun, a label, a consensus, you are affirming and positing something that is not 'just' a noun, a label, a consensus. It is exactly what E does. And to be clear, I am not saying that there is NOT something other than 'consensus'. There might be. Its all a play of ideas.
The words 'maybe' and 'possibly' are the 2 key words here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2013 4:10:13 GMT -5
Well now come to think of it ... Friday ... yeah, now there's a potential verb for sure.
For some of the jobs I've had in my life the word "Mondayed" sure seems to apply as well.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 14, 2013 5:47:42 GMT -5
Well now come to think of it ... Friday ... yeah, now there's a potential verb for sure. For some of the jobs I've had in my life the word "Mondayed" sure seems to apply as well. Noun or verb, it doesn't make any difference to what I am saying there. There are times when we might point away from nouns to verbs, but its just a non-dual pointer. What I am saying there is that whether its a noun or verb, questioning will still reveal a 'maybe' or 'possibly'. Take any statement/idea you like. Its all debatable (and even that is debatable). No statement is necessarily true (including that one). What I am doing here is pointing away from non-duality (i.e. its pointers). I am pointing to the emptiness of emptiness. Which strangely takes us back to form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 6:06:42 GMT -5
...pleasant summer evening back in the '70's with friends. Music, food. A few beers, a little weed. A nudge in the side, giggles, and an exclamation...."'thur!" Suddenly everyone is exclaiming..."'thur!" "'thur!" The name stuck, and I'm still 'thur to my lifelong friends to this day... Everyday is 'thur's day.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 14, 2013 7:31:23 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.. Here is what I am hearing from both of you (paraphrasing through my own expression): Enigma: you are not the part, you are the whole mistakenly identifying itself as a part. In realizing your non-partness and shedding your identification with the part, you free yourself to be/see who you really are, the whole. Tzujanli: you are the part, but in being the part you are whole unto itself, a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic whole. All the properties and qualities of the whole are reflected in you, the part, and the whole is constructed from the interplay of the parts. The problem that I see is that you two are not speaking the same language. You share the same terms but the wholes in the two descriptions are not the same wholes. Enigma is speaking from a phenomenological subjectivity. For Enigma the whole that is constructed out of parts is just an idea occurring in the mind which is itself occurring within the whole of the present experience. For you, what Enigma calls whole, you call a part which interplays with other whole-parts to construct the fabric of life playing itself out. Anything beyond the present-moment experience is just an idea in the mind. When the mind drops it's ideas, the whole that is approached/realized/seen is the whole that Enigma talks about being. The other whole, a construction of parts, is just how the mind interprets the experience that is happening. I'm trying my best to bridge the divide between your two expressions. I don't know yet that you see clearly what Enigma is pointing to. You both talk about dropping beliefs. Enigma is pointing at what remains when there are no beliefs left in the mind. His focus on no separation is a focus on the absence of the mind. It is the mind's function to separate what is not separate.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 14, 2013 7:44:13 GMT -5
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!) You're lucky, Mr. Blue isn't around anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 8:05:29 GMT -5
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!) You're lucky, Mr. Blue isn't around anymore. Aw, I enjoyed looking at that reef. My favorite dive was 'Off the Wall' near Grand Caymen. Swimming through elkhorn canyon out into a dark blue abyss.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 14, 2013 8:55:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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? I don't have a belief in separation, i observe its presence relative to your observation of 'no separation'.. there's nothing to be gained or accomplished by claiming "oneness is truth", other than creating the contrasting principle that 'separation exists'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 14, 2013 9:10:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Here is what I am hearing from both of you (paraphrasing through my own expression): Enigma: you are not the part, you are the whole mistakenly identifying itself as a part. In realizing your non-partness and shedding your identification with the part, you free yourself to be/see who you really are, the whole. Tzujanli: you are the part, but in being the part you are whole unto itself, a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic whole. All the properties and qualities of the whole are reflected in you, the part, and the whole is constructed from the interplay of the parts. The problem that I see is that you two are not speaking the same language. You share the same terms but the wholes in the two descriptions are not the same wholes. Enigma is speaking from a phenomenological subjectivity. For Enigma the whole that is constructed out of parts is just an idea occurring in the mind which is itself occurring within the whole of the present experience. For you, what Enigma calls whole, you call a part which interplays with other whole-parts to construct the fabric of life playing itself out. Anything beyond the present-moment experience is just an idea in the mind. When the mind drops it's ideas, the whole that is approached/realized/seen is the whole that Enigma talks about being. The other whole, a construction of parts, is just how the mind interprets the experience that is happening. I'm trying my best to bridge the divide between your two expressions. I don't know yet that you see clearly what Enigma is pointing to. You both talk about dropping beliefs. Enigma is pointing at what remains when there are no beliefs left in the mind. His focus on no separation is a focus on the absence of the mind. It is the mind's function to separate what is not separate. LOL.. really good effort, too.. here's the thing.. IF there are NO beliefs, what remains is the pure observation, parts interacting as a whole.. there is no "absence of the mind", it is the medium of awareness for this present instant of existence.. a still and clear mind is the best 'we' have, Phil is theorizing within that mind's capacity for imagining beyond the present 'happening'.. Be well..
|
|