|
Post by lolly on Nov 18, 2013 23:43:34 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence.
Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered.
Ironically, here is a thread on the subject.
To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view.
Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be.
In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token.
That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values.
Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these.
What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time.
Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness.
We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'.
I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci.
What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 19, 2013 0:00:40 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence. Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered. Ironically, here is a thread on the subject. To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view. Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be. In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token. That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values. Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these. What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time. Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness. We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'. I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci. What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was. The thought that most frequently comes to mind here on this forum is that it must leave the words.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 19, 2013 0:11:21 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence. Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered. Ironically, here is a thread on the subject. To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view. Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be. In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token. That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values. Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these. What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time. Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness. We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'. I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci. What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was. The thought that most frequently comes to mind here on this forum is that it must leave the words. Words are merely the vehicals of meaning. It's a learned code I can create meaning from and you can extract meaning from, and the importance of right and wrong is completely diminished by what people really mean. It reminds me of some work I was doing to find out how we can improve cultural competency in social services. The key finding of that work was, to understand the culture you have to get to know the person, and that concept transformed the way training should be delivered, because you can't actually teach cultural competency. The recommendations included very informal training strategies like cooking, food, multicultural tea parties with some traditional costumes and maybe dances etc, so that people mingle and teah eachother through getting to know one another. SO... to know what a person means is knowing the meaning of the person...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2013 22:43:11 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence. Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered. Ironically, here is a thread on the subject. To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view. Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be. In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token. That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values. Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these. What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time. Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness. We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'. I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci. What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was.For some reason, that got me into a giggle fit.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 20, 2013 4:27:27 GMT -5
The funny word is individual. I think that really captures human nature if you read it as indivisible dual... where I assume it was originated. I mean, lets meditate on death, that's always fun, right? Like that fat slug with the pipe was askin', 'Who?' The you that dies. Yep, that sums me up perfectly, 'immortal dreamer of death.' How apt.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 21, 2013 2:40:16 GMT -5
What we should do is look at this concept very closely, and without the spiritualism that fixates individual world views, for though we each have two eyes that see, these eyes work as one in offering two different perspectives. What if we had one eye that refused to compliment the other? We'd not know which eye was seeing rightly and which wrongly. Even if we covered each eye in turn we'd but see one view then another, neither right and neither wrong. Such is duality, like the eyes, no rightly and wrongly could be ascertained, but still, two different views, yet open both to see but one image made whole, while at the same time, being no lesser nor more, than that of one eye or the other.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 26, 2013 4:15:19 GMT -5
Explaining duality is the investigation of the relationship between two things. In considering that, one thing is defined in relation to its counterpart, and in the dual relationship, an infinitesimal difference between them is also an infinity of difference, because there is no scalar quantity. This amount is immeasurable, and hence gives no form to the things in question. In fact, by even conceiving a difference we conceptualise a 3 part model, and we must accept that duality lies beyond the powers of visualization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 11:32:00 GMT -5
One cannot know nothing or everything, because everything cannot be compared to anything else... with no comparison nothing exists. Yet, awareness of nothing is dependent on the creation of its comparative, everything.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 26, 2013 22:31:59 GMT -5
One cannot know nothing or everything, because everything cannot be compared to anything else... with no comparison nothing exists. Yet, awareness of nothing is dependent on the creation of its comparative, everything. The actual issue is, a thing is only defined in relation to other things, hence there is no such thing as 'one thing', and in that regard, a thing can't be distinguished from nothing. If we presume there are two things, each of those is defined in relation to the other, so they are the same in that they differ in a mutual degree. Like 'the same difference' as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Nov 26, 2013 23:22:57 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence. Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered. Ironically, here is a thread on the subject. To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view. Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be. In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token. That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values. Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these. What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time. Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness. We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'. I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci. What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was. "Oh, bother"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 0:18:43 GMT -5
We see that people define duality as polars or opposites or separation, which by regression, eventually comes down to existence vs non-existence. Not that I know the intention of the Tao sage, but it seems to me the quandary isn't actually a question to be answered. Ironically, here is a thread on the subject. To define a thing, it has to be described in language of some kind, and the name is not the thing, as any one brain cell knows. But duality is a shool of thought that does NOT differentiate between existence and non-existence, contrary to the layman's view. Examine this thing we call 'existence'. What? a singular representative of IS? It is a fanciful object that we create for the sake of conjecture... as opposed to 'being', which pertains to ourelves. "I know not of existence, only that I be" (actually, I said that). Screw all the 'non'-duality crap (for the moment at least), and be. In the essence of this, being... there is no property that can be attributed to it, and we can't assert that it exists or doesn't exist in any objective sense, yet there is no room for doubt or debate... and we successfully disbanded with all aspects of dimension and time by this token. That's like, no-one can be more. In life we try to be more, better than we were, rise to the occasion... and in all regards, we merely try to be true to core principles and values. Are we then to say that being is happy sad joyful depressed and other qualities which are human? Can being be sad be happy be joyful or be anything? Surely this objectifies being into some form or another, and associates the changing form with the being of form and adds dimension and time to essential being, contradicting the earlier disbanding of these. What then of self? Am I being? OK, this is nonsense, what can I be that precedes being? Being is the priori, not in time and space, but in fundamentalism. Nothing can stand behind being without incorporating dimension, and nothing can create being without incorporating time. Eternity without time or in time immeasurable, being didn't occur (when?). It never happens and it never goes away, and even 'never' alludes to timeliness. We don't experience time. We experience change, and in our corporal form we are affected, but what of being? Being isn't affected by changing form, form is enacted by form, this form of myself the outcome of all that occured to my mind, and in this regard, Descartes rightfully said 'I think therefore I am', or Buddha said, 'you are all you have thought'. I stand under no judgment for all I thought and what that makes me, not in any real sense. Judgment is upon the painting of myself or on the lesser sketches another person might draw... and of course one will assess their own work of art... but this subjection isn't as though one would grade a child's drawing against the works of Leonardo da Vinci. What does this have to do with Duality? Well - nothing. It does remind me of something Pooh Bear said once though, but I can't remember exactly what that was. "Oh, bother"? B!!...welcome back! Was just thinking about you yesterday and wondering when you might grace us again with your bear-y presence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 1:00:01 GMT -5
B!!...welcome back! Was just thinking about you yesterday and wondering when you might grace us again with your bear-y presence. lolly sayin' pooh bear was a bat signal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 1:43:51 GMT -5
One cannot know nothing or everything, because everything cannot be compared to anything else... with no comparison nothing exists. Yet, awareness of nothing is dependent on the creation of its comparative, everything. The actual issue is, a thing is only defined in relation to other things, hence there is no such thing as 'one thing', and in that regard, a thing can't be distinguished from nothing. If we presume there are two things, each of those is defined in relation to the other, so they are the same in that they differ in a mutual degree. Like 'the same difference' as it were. Yes, I agree that a thing is only defined in relation to other things. But why is it an issue?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 1:55:24 GMT -5
The ineffable is ineffable. It's saying too much already to say that there is nothing meaningful that can be said about the ineffable.
This isn't to say that we can't make note of what is effable. We can speak about what the ineffable is not.
There is no way to speak silence -- no point of absolute reference is available to us ... but the duality dilemma seems to suggest that non-silence owes existence to silence.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 27, 2013 1:57:12 GMT -5
It's not an issue. It's THE issue. teehee. The point is, two things are defined by a difference, but because the difference is mutual, they are the same.
|
|