|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2014 12:49:40 GMT -5
Its just not necessarily the case that there are assumptions happening. In a way it is self-defeating, yes, but holding a position is not something I am interested in. I prefer the groundlessness of possibility, rather than the solid foundation that conceptual truths offer. Your proposition is conceptual, you acknowledge it yourself. To suggest that it starts from a 'truth' is to take a solid foundation of conceptual truths. I say it would be of a huge benefit for all those who insist upon asserting certain 'truths' about existence/being, to have a gander at that interest/bent they have towards pin-pointing precisely 'what is actually happening.' The very fact that there is an interest to nail things 'about being' down in such a way, is in & of itself an important indicator...in most cases, I'd say an indicator of some amount of need/attachment that is still active. Yes. The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a subtle way to hold onto it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2014 13:10:27 GMT -5
Its just not necessarily the case that there are assumptions happening. In a way it is self-defeating, yes, but holding a position is not something I am interested in. I prefer the groundlessness of possibility, rather than the solid foundation that conceptual truths offer. Your proposition is conceptual, you acknowledge it yourself. To suggest that it starts from a 'truth' is to take a solid foundation of conceptual truths. I say it would be of a huge benefit for all those who insist upon asserting certain 'truths' about existence/being, to have a gander at that interest/bent they have towards pin-pointing precisely 'what is actually happening.' The very fact that there is an interest to nail things 'about being' down in such a way, is in & of itself an important indicator...in most cases, I'd say an indicator of some amount of need/attachment that is still active. Yes. Basically, to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual', even if the explanation points away from the conceptual! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 30, 2014 13:18:45 GMT -5
I say it would be of a huge benefit for all those who insist upon asserting certain 'truths' about existence/being, to have a gander at that interest/bent they have towards pin-pointing precisely 'what is actually happening.' The very fact that there is an interest to nail things 'about being' down in such a way, is in & of itself an important indicator...in most cases, I'd say an indicator of some amount of need/attachment that is still active. Yes. Basically, to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual', even if the explanation points away from the conceptual! Andy, If you want to reply to something in the GSD, at this point, you'll have to quote it in a UM thread. ok, well that's enough of that. I've cut off the mega thread that was developing in the GSD and moved the last 100 posts (of everyone) into UM. At this point, figless and andrewtemp, for the time being, I'm going to require that you stay out of the GSD. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2014 13:21:18 GMT -5
Laughter, yes okay, I just saw that.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 30, 2014 13:28:41 GMT -5
Its just not necessarily the case that there are assumptions happening. In a way it is self-defeating, yes, but holding a position is not something I am interested in. I prefer the groundlessness of possibility, rather than the solid foundation that conceptual truths offer. Your proposition is conceptual, you acknowledge it yourself. To suggest that it starts from a 'truth' is to take a solid foundation of conceptual truths. I say it would be of a huge benefit for all those who insist upon asserting certain 'truths' about existence/being, to have a gander at that interest/bent they have towards pin-pointing precisely 'what is actually happening.' The very fact that there is an interest to nail things 'about being' down in such a way, is in & of itself an important indicator...in most cases, I'd say an indicator of some amount of need/attachment that is still active. So you would have a need/attachment to pointing this out, then? |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on May 30, 2014 17:37:35 GMT -5
So it's only an apparent assumption that there are apparent assumptions? I'm sorry, but your position is utterly and fundamentally self-defeating. Its just not necessarily the case that there are assumptions happening. In a way it is self-defeating, yes, but holding a position is not something I am interested in. I prefer the groundlessness of possibility, rather than the solid foundation that conceptual truths offer. Your proposition is conceptual, you acknowledge it yourself. To suggest that it starts from a 'truth' is to take a solid foundation of conceptual truths. Question. What would an un-real experience be? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 30, 2014 19:52:27 GMT -5
The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here
point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of
non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I
see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that
non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a
subtle way to hold onto it.
Aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater?.. It's not about discarding 'the conceptual', that would be like denying an aspect of reality.. you can't just remove it.. because ultimately as all is consciousness, all is also concept to some degree.. there's the word tree and there's the tree itself, but neither are totally real.. in the distinction between existence being of a holistic mutually-contingenct and interrelated nature on one hand while simultaneously being of an individualized and interactive nature on the other hand, herein is concept part of the actual fabric of reality in terms of a creative, sentient process.. indeed one is not a mere thought of the divine, not a mere figment dreamed up but in fact one is a dreamer themselves, if one has reached this point of realization at least.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with thought impacting reality like the law of attraction and other such nonsense, it has to do with a sort of twilight of awareness between the poles.. ultimately the pivotal distinction this conversation is getting at is the extent to which 'the conceptual' is properly digested or not.. to 'See', what this means is that at any instant you are passively aware of a great many things, such as your name, your date of birth, that what you're reading this on is a computer, etc, but you aren't constantly repeating these things to yourself in your head.. it's a matter of awareness, still somewhat a function of mindfulness and aloofness, but separate from experiential alertness.. or if you wish, as is the trend these days, strip yourself of all you know, so that you can See like a little child, perpetually gawking at the apparently precious small things in life, only able to see the universe in a grain of sand, through the lens of of the womb, rather than as it actually is..
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 30, 2014 21:14:04 GMT -5
I would say there is still a core/primary assumption there. If your assumption was a truth, then non-duality would undoubtedly be correct. It would be 'the truth'. But its just a theory. Even if scientists could prove that its true (which would be cool), they would still be starting from a primary assumption. So even if they do prove it, the experience of 'non-duality' will always be a matter of faith (though the word 'realization' probably suits more people). As I see it, that it starts with an assumption is good because this unknown factor creates the potential for Joy of the unknown. The Joy is in the leap of faith (or realization if you prefer). So basically, nonduality is a religion to you? |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 30, 2014 23:14:30 GMT -5
I say it would be of a huge benefit for all those who insist upon asserting certain 'truths' about existence/being, to have a gander at that interest/bent they have towards pin-pointing precisely 'what is actually happening.' The very fact that there is an interest to nail things 'about being' down in such a way, is in & of itself an important indicator...in most cases, I'd say an indicator of some amount of need/attachment that is still active. Yes. The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a subtle way to hold onto it. People may deny it, though a non-dualist couldn't reasonably do so, but the thought structure is formed by all the stuff we read (past tense) and continues to be influenced by this very passage, so in conveying this message to you, I form meaningful concepts and encode them in language, only to have you unravel the code to arrive at your own conclusions, and by so doing, your mental workings are altered very slightly, as are mine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 23:31:25 GMT -5
Yes. The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a subtle way to hold onto it. People may deny it, though a non-dualist couldn't reasonably do so, but the thought structure is formed by all the stuff we read (past tense) and continues to be influenced by this very passage, so in conveying this message to you, I form meaningful concepts and encode them in language, only to have you unravel the code to arrive at your own conclusions, and by so doing, your mental workings are altered very slightly, as are mine. non-dual and dual are simply opposite view points from mental perspective. Catching what is arising gives a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2014 2:43:54 GMT -5
The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a subtle way to hold onto it. Aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater?.. It's not about discarding 'the conceptual', that would be like denying an aspect of reality.. you can't just remove it.. because ultimately as all is consciousness, all is also concept to some degree.. there's the word tree and there's the tree itself, but neither are totally real.. in the distinction between existence being of a holistic mutually-contingenct and interrelated nature on one hand while simultaneously being of an individualized and interactive nature on the other hand, herein is concept part of the actual fabric of reality in terms of a creative, sentient process.. indeed one is not a mere thought of the divine, not a mere figment dreamed up but in fact one is a dreamer themselves, if one has reached this point of realization at least.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with thought impacting reality like the law of attraction and other such nonsense, it has to do with a sort of twilight of awareness between the poles.. ultimately the pivotal distinction this conversation is getting at is the extent to which 'the conceptual' is properly digested or not.. to 'See', what this means is that at any instant you are passively aware of a great many things, such as your name, your date of birth, that what you're reading this on is a computer, etc, but you aren't constantly repeating these things to yourself in your head.. it's a matter of awareness, still somewhat a function of mindfulness and aloofness, but separate from experiential alertness.. or if you wish, as is the trend these days, strip yourself of all you know, so that you can See like a little child, perpetually gawking at the apparently precious small things in life, only able to see the universe in a grain of sand, through the lens of of the womb, rather than as it actually is.. No, I'm not suggesting to remove or discard 'understanding', I think 'understanding' is a useful (and inevitable) thing, but non-duality is odd in that it requires a 'realization' or a leap of faith into what seems irrational and illogical. Its a leap into what seems to be unknown. Therefore, in the non-dual context, there is a boundary to how far understanding can take us, because understanding is rational, logical and known. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2014 2:45:21 GMT -5
I would say there is still a core/primary assumption there. If your assumption was a truth, then non-duality would undoubtedly be correct. It would be 'the truth'. But its just a theory. Even if scientists could prove that its true (which would be cool), they would still be starting from a primary assumption. So even if they do prove it, the experience of 'non-duality' will always be a matter of faith (though the word 'realization' probably suits more people). As I see it, that it starts with an assumption is good because this unknown factor creates the potential for Joy of the unknown. The Joy is in the leap of faith (or realization if you prefer). So basically, nonduality is a religion to you? No. I would say taking conceptual non-duality as truth (which you seem to do), would be more akin to religion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2014 2:46:01 GMT -5
Yes. The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a subtle way to hold onto it. People may deny it, though a non-dualist couldn't reasonably do so, but the thought structure is formed by all the stuff we read (past tense) and continues to be influenced by this very passage, so in conveying this message to you, I form meaningful concepts and encode them in language, only to have you unravel the code to arrive at your own conclusions, and by so doing, your mental workings are altered very slightly, as are mine. Yep |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2014 2:49:07 GMT -5
Its just not necessarily the case that there are assumptions happening. In a way it is self-defeating, yes, but holding a position is not something I am interested in. I prefer the groundlessness of possibility, rather than the solid foundation that conceptual truths offer. Your proposition is conceptual, you acknowledge it yourself. To suggest that it starts from a 'truth' is to take a solid foundation of conceptual truths. Question. What would an un-real experience be? Not sure what 'un-real' is. In Australia, doesn't it mean 'amazing'? I could go with that.....a totally amazing, radical experience dude hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2014 4:25:41 GMT -5
People may deny it, though a non-dualist couldn't reasonably do so, but the thought structure is formed by all the stuff we read (past tense) and continues to be influenced by this very passage, so in conveying this message to you, I form meaningful concepts and encode them in language, only to have you unravel the code to arrive at your own conclusions, and by so doing, your mental workings are altered very slightly, as are mine. non-dual and dual are simply opposite view points from mental perspective. Catching what is arising gives a clue. not two is not a perspective. |
|
