|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 16:20:07 GMT -5
So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). As far as the relationship being confusing...I dunno. I've 'seen' the relationship between perceiver and perceived, but I haven't seen the relationship between ISness and actuality. Adya describes a waking-up experience he had as a realization of God-ness everywhere, and walking around his house and seeing that the toilet was God. Uh...that has not happened here. Flowers, maybe. Nature, a sense of it. The toilet...no. I think an 'understanding' based on a conversation with anyone about this is going to be confusing. No reason not to ask the questions though. Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God. This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 17:08:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. So, to you, actuality doesn't equate to 'what is', reality/ISness does. Interrrresting. I'll try to remember that if we get into one of these conversations again. To me, actuality is 'what is' and ISness is TWCBN (That Which Cannot Be Named). As far as the relationship being confusing...I dunno. I've 'seen' the relationship between perceiver and perceived, but I haven't seen the relationship between ISness and actuality. Adya describes a waking-up experience he had as a realization of God-ness everywhere, and walking around his house and seeing that the toilet was God. Uh...that has not happened here. Flowers, maybe. Nature, a sense of it. The toilet...no. I think an 'understanding' based on a conversation with anyone about this is going to be confusing. No reason not to ask the questions though. Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God. 'God' is just another 'idea'.. keep moving along, there's nothing to see here.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 17:10:56 GMT -5
Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God. This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool? Well, now I'm beginning to have an inkling of what's got you blocking and such. This mind-hook you refer to - it stopped me dead. When we stop separating it out, we don't need to figure out how it relates. There's nowhere to go with that. In a conversation, that's annoying as hell. Frustrating. Internally, though.... ...it got real quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 18:19:57 GMT -5
This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool? Well, now I'm beginning to have an inkling of what's got you blocking and such. This mind-hook you refer to - it stopped me dead. When we stop separating it out, we don't need to figure out how it relates. There's nowhere to go with that. In a conversation, that's annoying as hell. Frustrating. Internally, though.... ...it got real quiet. I'm sorry, Quinn, I don't know what in the world you're saying, here.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 26, 2013 19:15:46 GMT -5
Well, now I'm beginning to have an inkling of what's got you blocking and such. This mind-hook you refer to - it stopped me dead. When we stop separating it out, we don't need to figure out how it relates. There's nowhere to go with that. In a conversation, that's annoying as hell. Frustrating. Internally, though.... ...it got real quiet. I'm sorry, Quinn, I don't know what in the world you're saying, here. No problem, B.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 19:36:24 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Quinn, I don't know what in the world you're saying, here. No problem, B. I'll rephrase: Thanks for your input, Quinn. It sounds like there might be something there for me to listen to. Care to elaborate? Or is it not important? Here it is again--
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 26, 2013 20:32:27 GMT -5
I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. [/quote] I'm trying to understand how and why things get this complicated for some people.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 20:34:35 GMT -5
I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. I'm trying to understand how and why things get this complicated for some people. Seems pretty simple, to me. Just a matter of gettin' the lingo down.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 26, 2013 20:41:30 GMT -5
Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God. This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool? This post reminds me why I was asking you what a "beingist" actually is. The more I read these posts the more it seems like you need reminders to just drop this mindplay to the ground like your arms are full to the brim.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 26, 2013 20:47:12 GMT -5
This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool? This post reminds me why I was asking you what a "beingist" actually is. The more I read these posts the more it seems like you need reminders to just drop this mindplay to the ground like your arms are full to the brim. How are you supposed to drop mindplay, when the whole board is full of it? (Present addressee excluded).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 21:58:22 GMT -5
Greetings.. Once we separate and define stuff, like isness and actuality, then we have to figure out what the relationship is between the ideas we made up. This is what makes this sort of question misconceived. (shout out to B) If we don't separate to begin with, the toilet is obviously God. 'God' is just another 'idea'. Right, as is the separate person. Once conceived, then we have to figure out the relationship between God and the person.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 22:01:14 GMT -5
This is a mind hook, but I'll address it. You make a good point, however, stuff has to be defined in order to communicate it. For example, if all is literally God, then God must be an illusion, because we know that illusion happens. This would require a definition of illusion, a definition of what you mean by God, all sorts of definitions. And then, what is the relationship between God and the illusion? Are they separate? But, wait, no separation, right? This begs the question, then, what is more important to you--knowing or experience the toilet as God, or getting that point across to others so that they don't mistake you for an arrogant fool? Well, now I'm beginning to have an inkling of what's got you blocking and such. This mind-hook you refer to - it stopped me dead. When we stop separating it out, we don't need to figure out how it relates. There's nowhere to go with that. In a conversation, that's annoying as hell. Frustrating. Internally, though.... ...it got real quiet. Poifect.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 22:05:07 GMT -5
I'm actually still working on understanding the relationship between ISness and actuality (i.e., perceiver and perceived). I've long held that the latter is a manifestation of the former, but in a conversation some months ago, E got me all confused on that (another reason for the ignore), and so I would now have to revisit it, but don't, because of the 'misconceived question' issue. "All that appears and that to which it appears" is actuality, to me (as opposed to Reality, which is, basically, ISness). Lastly, glad we're on the same page with emotions. I'm trying to understand how and why things get this complicated for some people. One interesting thought at a time.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 27, 2013 1:22:06 GMT -5
Hi enigma, In view of your attempt to analyze my character, I would like to first ask some questions to see how clear of conditioning the attempt is, and suggest an analysis in return. What is it that you think you know about me for you to suggest what I need? Could it be that your prescription for me has something to do with what works for you which is then projected out onto others as though they were like you? The defense thinking behind that in terms of what you find unacceptable in yourself would be some form of rejection. The details may not be known to you anymore as covered up by attacking those who reject you as the best defense you could come up with way back when this character was first constructed by your mind. This is only a suggestion presented for your consideration not a statement of how you actually are. I would be interested to hear your response. There is no shame in considering this sought of stuff, I suspect we all have some it going on to varying degrees. Looking at defenses, requires a willingness, openness, and care on both sides. amit Like I said, look at it or don't. I'm not going to play the mirror game with you. H enigma, Fair enough but is not surprising that you are asked about yourself when getting personal with others. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 1:57:18 GMT -5
This post reminds me why I was asking you what a "beingist" actually is. The more I read these posts the more it seems like you need reminders to just drop this mindplay to the ground like your arms are full to the brim. How are you supposed to drop mindplay, when the whole board is full of it? (Present addressee excluded). Then literally speaking, there would be a need to drop the 'whole board'. Yeah?
|
|