|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 0:19:30 GMT -5
What am I? Spirit in human form, a non physical consciousness experiencing physical reality, God individuated. What is God? Infinite Love, Creator, Creation and Created. Why is there life? So that God can experience Itself. ZM Seung Sahn used to say, "If you open your mouth, you've already made a mistake." Ha ha. Bingo! Mistake!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 0:24:29 GMT -5
Of course I do. You know as well as I that the questions are endless, and that's because it's all Germidgepillion talk. You imagine an answer, I imagine another question. Round and round we go until we have enough to write a bible and form a new religion. Andology? By now, there's already an anthology of Andology.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 0:27:07 GMT -5
Reefs...or quinn Either of you got a existential question that you have come to believe is misconceived? I'm not saying there are no misconceived existential questions, but I reckon I can have a pop at most genuine ones. The question of purpose perhaps? You seem to think the fact that you can imagine an answer somehow shows that the question is not misconceived. I find that rather odd.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 0:37:13 GMT -5
I don't particularly ponder existential questions but the reason that you don't ponder them (and they don't arise) is for a different reason to me. You have come to a particular set of answers which ensures that they don't arise...specifically, you have 'resolved' and 'dissolved' the questions by deciding that they are misconceived. Fan-feckin-tastic! That foregrounds the question, what is more important: that the questions don't arise anymore or why the questions don't arise anymore? A fundamentalist Christian who has bought the story hook line and sinker may not have any more existential questions. I think what's important is if one thinks there are answers. Not having the answers perpetuates the seeking. Having the answers perpetuates the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 0:44:13 GMT -5
Why is that a belief? That's your wall again, Andrew. Do you think it's possible to let go of that assumption? Could be helpful for better understandings. Call it what you like.....seen/realized/understand/believe. I can well believe that you 'realized' that an existential question is misconceived. To try and use and example here, you may have 'realized' that the issue of free will is misconceived. But the basis for that is the assumption that 'there is no person/individual' to which free will applies/does not apply. If there IS a person/individual, then the issue of free will is not misconceived. Now, you may have 'realized' that 'there is no person/individual', but there is going to be an assumption beneath that too. The realization stands on top of another assumption on top of another assumption on top of another assumption. Its layers and layers of ideas. I'm not saying that the realization is without value, and realizations can and do inform mind and our experience, but its still just another perception point, or idea. Upshot: Don't take realizations so darn seriously. Again, you have no idea what realization is.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 29, 2013 0:51:34 GMT -5
Reefs...or quinn Either of you got a existential question that you have come to believe is misconceived? I'm not saying there are no misconceived existential questions, but I reckon I can have a pop at most genuine ones. The question of purpose perhaps? You seem to think the fact that you can imagine an answer somehow shows that the question is not misconceived. I find that rather odd. Ironically, it's not even in the top 10 odd things to come out of Andrew's mouth/fingers.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 1:41:07 GMT -5
A literal word lawyer analysis of the syntactical sentence structure reveals that the resistance implies something being denied and the intrusion allows for the potential for that to be revealed. Yes, that potential does follow from the intrusion. Hey, buddy, yer getting pretty personal with your questions here. So was there a basis of knowledge about you that made my previous comments at least legitimate or not? It consisted mostly of information that you have revealed directly here, and it doesn't take a psychic to discern some of your basic unspoken motivations. Hi enigma, Yes they are personal questions to try and get some information about what it is that you think you know about yourself that makes you think you can see into the hearts and minds of others and prescribe for them. Do you know what that might be? amit I don't understand the possible relationship between knowing something about myself, and seeing into others. Can you connect the dots for me?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 29, 2013 1:56:03 GMT -5
I can just imagine how wide your eyes got when you first read that "it's all a play of ideas" quote from Niz. It's like the holy grail for you now lol. Suffice to say that at the time, it wasn't exactly unpleasing to discover a 'guru' whose words very much supported 'my' words. But it wasn't really a recommendation to go off and play with ideas.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 29, 2013 2:08:13 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Yes they are personal questions to try and get some information about what it is that you think you know about yourself that makes you think you can see into the hearts and minds of others and prescribe for them. Do you know what that might be? amit I don't understand the possible relationship between knowing something about myself, and seeing into others. Can you connect the dots for me? Hi enigma, The seeing of what others need would not be clear if unresolved aspects of your own character were being projected. amit
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 2:12:27 GMT -5
I assume that saying its 'Germidgepillion talk' is your way of saying that this talk is somehow 'less' than something else? I am not divvying up my experience in that way ....I'm just answering your questions to show you that they are not misconceived. Got any more? Come on. Religion requires attachment to belief. That's not what I am pointing to. No, the point is not about some hierarchy, but that it's all imagination, and so the idea that there are objective answers that have meaning beyond what is assigned to them, is misconceived. I haven't said that they ARE objective answers, hence why I gave a bunch of spiritual teacher's interpretations. The point is that the question is not misconceived, unless you can explain clearly the basis for saying that it is. Crikey. Is it possible......haha....is your basis for the question being misconceived that 'no idea is ultimately true'? That WOULD explain why you think existential ideas are misconceived. Unfortunately the idea that 'no idea is ultimately true' is a misconceived idea hehe. The pointer 'its all imagination' is very misleading because it implies a prior imaginer.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 2:14:02 GMT -5
What's your point? This is all a play of ideas E-Man (unless its not). That doesn't mean that when the experience of knowing an answer to your questions arises that I am not going to answer them. I think most peeps can see the absurdity of not knowing the dietary habits of an imaginary creature without more information. The fact that you don't is a bit.....disconcerting. huh? I don't know what you are talking about here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 2:18:44 GMT -5
Reefs...or quinn Either of you got a existential question that you have come to believe is misconceived? I'm not saying there are no misconceived existential questions, but I reckon I can have a pop at most genuine ones. The question of purpose perhaps? You seem to think the fact that you can imagine an answer somehow shows that the question is not misconceived. I find that rather odd. A misconceived question is when you ask a calculator to do something and it comes back 'N/A' (at least it did 25 years ago when I was at school). What is your basis for saying those questions are misconceived? Have I already guessed it? Just because no idea is necessarily true or false, does not mean that existential questions are misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 2:19:34 GMT -5
Call it what you like.....seen/realized/understand/believe. I can well believe that you 'realized' that an existential question is misconceived. To try and use and example here, you may have 'realized' that the issue of free will is misconceived. But the basis for that is the assumption that 'there is no person/individual' to which free will applies/does not apply. If there IS a person/individual, then the issue of free will is not misconceived. Now, you may have 'realized' that 'there is no person/individual', but there is going to be an assumption beneath that too. The realization stands on top of another assumption on top of another assumption on top of another assumption. Its layers and layers of ideas. I'm not saying that the realization is without value, and realizations can and do inform mind and our experience, but its still just another perception point, or idea. Upshot: Don't take realizations so darn seriously. Again, you have no idea what realization is. You don't. Do you still think realization happens at 'the level' of Being?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 29, 2013 2:20:40 GMT -5
Suffice to say that at the time, it wasn't exactly unpleasing to discover a 'guru' whose words very much supported 'my' words. But it wasn't really a recommendation to go off and play with ideas. By the time I 'found' Niz, I was already playing with them hehe. What do you suggest we do with them? Collapse them?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 29, 2013 2:39:41 GMT -5
You seem to think the fact that you can imagine an answer somehow shows that the question is not misconceived. I find that rather odd. Ironically, it's not even in the top 10 odd things to come out of Andrew's mouth/fingers. Gosh, you have a top 10 list for that?
|
|