|
Post by enigma on Aug 3, 2014 22:25:22 GMT -5
...Not with a bang, but with a whimper. How else is a wind to pass or a reflection to fade at dusk? Dream warriors can only fight dream battles, with no victor. To awaken from the dream is simply to lose interest and turn away. No fatal blow is ever struck. No funeral for the unborn. It is not noble to fight to the death with one's own shadow. It is the madness of a fool.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 4, 2014 0:43:29 GMT -5
This end of course was a foregone conclusion right from the start A figure cut of snow, sand or the smoke of a haphazard fire that couldn't be tended forever Such an artifice is the subject of change, always morphing, always shifting never not moving ... until well. Conflict is an interesting affair What is the source of the vector to oppose? From where does the warrior arise? Never looking back the soldier he has no time to question, only swing In those moments there is only battle A reflection of what doesn't change is found explicitly in the dark of the absence of civillization or in the natural sounds of 3am on a deserted road or with eyes closed to a gentle breeze at the top of a hill That same reflection is available even in the thickest of malestrom in the busiest of beat, the most chaotic of din by way of contrast The eyes, the ears, the nose, the mouth and the skin work by differential What the senses report is change To what measure? Against what backdrop? Don't stop asking until the battle is over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 16:15:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Aug 4, 2014 18:49:25 GMT -5
...Not with a bang, but with a whimper. How else is a wind to pass or a reflection to fade at dusk? Dream warriors can only fight dream battles, with no victor. To awaken from the dream is simply to lose interest and turn away. No fatal blow is ever struck. No funeral for the unborn. It is not noble to fight to the death with one's own shadow. It is the madness of a fool. Seems like this happens (to some extent) through a bareness of attention. The dawning of some kind of insight that all these supposed adversaries must be laughing at the endless project of trying to make them (reality) confirm to my wishes and desires. so very tiring!!!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 5, 2014 5:24:48 GMT -5
It ends when it is let go.. the inquisition against 'self' is the evidence of its existence.. if the 'self' doesn't exist you are 'tilting at windmills'..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 10:45:00 GMT -5
It ends when it is let go.. the inquisition against 'self' is the evidence of its existence.. if the 'self' doesn't exist you are 'tilting at windmills'.. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 5, 2014 20:05:25 GMT -5
It ends when it is let go.. the inquisition against 'self' is the evidence of its existence.. if the 'self' doesn't exist you are 'tilting at windmills'.. Well said. If you believe you are a rabbit, and I try to get you to see that you are not a rabbit; that the rabbit you think you are does not exist, am I tilting at windmills? I'm not actually talking to the imaginary rabbit, am I? Further, is the inquiry into your delusion of being a rabbit actually evidence that the rabbit exists?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 20:20:00 GMT -5
If you believe you are a rabbit, and I try to get you to see that you are not a rabbit; that the rabbit you think you are does not exist, am I tilting at windmills? I'm not actually talking to the imaginary rabbit, am I? Further, is the inquiry into your delusion of being a rabbit actually evidence that the rabbit exists? Good point, I didn't think of it that way.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 5, 2014 21:00:51 GMT -5
If you believe you are a rabbit, and I try to get you to see that you are not a rabbit; that the rabbit you think you are does not exist, am I tilting at windmills? I'm not actually talking to the imaginary rabbit, am I? Further, is the inquiry into your delusion of being a rabbit actually evidence that the rabbit exists? Good point, I didn't think of it that way. You can chase the rabbit down the rabbit hole, or.. just let go. See, until 'the rabbit' shows up you were experiencing the happening, then.. the rabbit tricks you into 'thinking'.. rabbits like to begin their tricks with "If"..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 21:03:24 GMT -5
Good point, I didn't think of it that way. You can chase the rabbit down the rabbit hole, or.. just let go. See, until 'the rabbit' shows up you were experiencing the happening, then.. the rabbit tricks you into 'thinking'.. rabbits like to begin their tricks with "If".. Uhh...ok.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 6, 2014 5:24:51 GMT -5
You can chase the rabbit down the rabbit hole, or.. just let go. See, until 'the rabbit' shows up you were experiencing the happening, then.. the rabbit tricks you into 'thinking'.. rabbits like to begin their tricks with "If".. Uhh...ok. The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 10:13:06 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? If they have discovered something useful, can we blame them for wanting to share it?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 6, 2014 10:55:53 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 6, 2014 12:17:01 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2014 12:43:37 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. Superfluous? Equal? It's reasoning that takes observations on the nature of what appears to us and forms that conclusion. It's TMT. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp If a "non dual teacher" is preaching that there is no meaning and that you "should just give up", then he's offering conclusory ideas about "reality". Instead, what I read from contributors here is that meaning infuses all that appears to us but that there is no intellectual abstraction that captures that meaning. The meaning of life isn't an idea and can't be captured by one. As far as "giving up" goes, what I read from contributors here is that there are efforts that an individual mistakes as possibly leading somewhere, when all those efforts can at best simply be seen as leading that individual right back to where they are, because as far as seeking is concerned, there's nowhere to go. That's a very different idea from "just give up". That idea doesn't mean that all doing and decisions and activity are futile. In fact, it's usually presented alongside the complimentary pointer that ordinary life, everyday mind, is what the seeker finds at the end of the road. There are no ideas about reality that are subject to validation such that they can't be contradicted. This is a recursive statement. Are you tempted to follow it to it's self-negation?
|
|