|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 12, 2014 10:11:27 GMT -5
The flaw is in believing that anything 'has to be true', it is simply happening.. oneness AND separation happen simultaneously, any minding beyond that experiencable actuality is Too Much Thinking... That one is just a case of logic. The only way for them both to be true (which I agree they are) is if oneness superseded separation. I agree that they are both experienced. Diversity and difference and uniqueness are definitely the spice of life, but without a basis of commonality, they are useless. I see no significance to the idea that "oneness superseded separation", holding onto or making an issue of one idea 'superseding' another idea is excess mental baggage.. the basis of commonality and the diversity happen simultaneously, and there is no 'commonality' if there is not diversity to define it as such.. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 10:14:10 GMT -5
Precisely. It's the fundamental flaw of all searches for happiness and a better world. There's nothing wrong with moving in that direction but it should be clear there's no Nirvana at the end of the road. The road just goes on forever.As A-H say, there's no end to joy, you will always be reaching for more relief. Which sounds great if you are currently mostly in the negative range and don't understand normalization. But if you do understand normalization, then you also understand the nature of this particular mind game and lose interest. Yes, the direction of spearitchool work is always the same; the recognition of the futility of the escape plan, followed by freedom. When we see somebody parading around a model of speerishul accomplishment, we already know it's a nonsense twaddle. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 10:21:01 GMT -5
That one is just a case of logic. The only way for them both to be true (which I agree they are) is if oneness superseded separation. I agree that they are both experienced. Diversity and difference and uniqueness are definitely the spice of life, but without a basis of commonality, they are useless. I see no significance to the idea that "oneness superseded separation", holding onto or making an issue of one idea 'superseding' another idea is excess mental baggage.. the basis of commonality and the diversity happen simultaneously, and there is no 'commonality' if there is not diversity to define it as such.. Aside from the logic then its a question of individual priority, and that's fine. I love diversity, uniqueness and difference, but if I didn't think the commonality was more fundamental, I doubt that I would love the diversity etc as much as I do. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 10:28:29 GMT -5
Yer right, I have no idea why non-limited is different from unlimited, and it worries me a little that you do. okay, thank you for at least clarifying that. twoness would be limited. oneness (or nothingness) would be unlimited. not-two would be non-limited. Does that clarify at all? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 12, 2014 10:34:35 GMT -5
I see no significance to the idea that "oneness superseded separation", holding onto or making an issue of one idea 'superseding' another idea is excess mental baggage.. the basis of commonality and the diversity happen simultaneously, and there is no 'commonality' if there is not diversity to define it as such.. Aside from the logic then its a question of individual priority, and that's fine. I love diversity, uniqueness and difference, but if I didn't think the commonality was more fundamental, I doubt that I would love the diversity etc as much as I do. That is, perhaps, the strangest idea you have conveyed.. may i ask why you choose that belief? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 11:11:55 GMT -5
I would say the formation of appearances is a process of bounding (forming boundaries) in or around the unlimited (emptiness?) in such a way that 'something' appears to be formed out of nothing. In this way, the illusion of limitation gives rise to appearances. It's not gibberish at all. Okay, that at least makes sense. However: 1) its a different context to the one we are arguing about and does assume that there IS a nothingness/emptiness out of which appearances are formed (I don't necessarily have a problem with that assumption). It's a way of talking about appearances being formed with what is essentially imagination. There isn't an actual nothingness required. If you imagine something right now, you are defining it with conceptual boundaries and forming something out of nothing, but we don't have to posit an actual nothing. I wouldn't say appearances are formed out of limitation, which could be interpreted as 'limitation is the substance out of which appearances are formed'. We're saying the illusion of limitation gives rise to appearances. To say appearances are not limited is to say the structure we create with our imaginary boundaries actually has no boundary. This is true because the boundaries are imaginary. We're just looking at those boundaries a little more closely and noticing they're imaginary. (i.e. there isn't an actual boundary between the wrist and the hand) To say they are limited would simply be to acknowledge the boundaries we imagined, which is equally meaningless. Feelings are also made of imagined boundaries, and therefore have no absolute actuality. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 11:23:19 GMT -5
Absotively. As far as the dynamics of feeling goes, the waking dream post realization is much like the lucid dream. Normalization and dualistic feeling as a movement still happens. But neither of them is suffering from the dream. I was wondering if it could be said that those who suffer from over-thinking are dreaming a lot more than those who have calmer minds. Oh. Yeah, I guess so. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 11:43:47 GMT -5
According to Andy, duality is nondual. I'd say that shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding too.  Not at all. The nature of appearances are non-dual, which means that there is a duality, but its an illusion...there is a separation, but its an illusion... there is a finiteness, but its an illusion....there is a limitedness, but its an illusion. Its because appearances are non-dual that we can point to an Absolute Real that is prior to it. The reason is that non-two, implicates both one (and nothing). If appearances were actually dual, there is no implication of one (and nothing). The reason being that two distinct, finite, limited 'objects' could only exist in a fragmented objective reality. Have you just recently discovered that duality is illusion? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 11:48:19 GMT -5
Aside from the logic then its a question of individual priority, and that's fine. I love diversity, uniqueness and difference, but if I didn't think the commonality was more fundamental, I doubt that I would love the diversity etc as much as I do. That is, perhaps, the strangest idea you have conveyed.. may i ask why you choose that belief? haha I doubt that. I love the uniqueness and diversity because there is something still shared and common within it. I am not separate from the individuality that is your genius or the uniqueness of Enigma's rugged good looks lol. Then again, I am also not separate from Laughter's moderating madness! Without the commonality as a basis, there would be reference for the uniqueness and diversity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 11:49:12 GMT -5
okay, thank you for at least clarifying that. twoness would be limited. oneness (or nothingness) would be unlimited. not-two would be non-limited. Does that clarify at all? Nope. Im sensing deliberate obtuseness. Try it this way twoness is finite oneness is infinite non-two is non-finite. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 12:01:16 GMT -5
Okay, that at least makes sense. However: 1) its a different context to the one we are arguing about and does assume that there IS a nothingness/emptiness out of which appearances are formed (I don't necessarily have a problem with that assumption). It's a way of talking about appearances being formed with what is essentially imagination. There isn't an actual nothingness required. If you imagine something right now, you are defining it with conceptual boundaries and forming something out of nothing, but we don't have to posit an actual nothing. I wouldn't say appearances are formed out of limitation, which could be interpreted as 'limitation is the substance out of which appearances are formed'. We're saying the illusion of limitation gives rise to appearances. To say appearances are not limited is to say the structure we create with our imaginary boundaries actually has no boundary. This is true because the boundaries are imaginary. We're just looking at those boundaries a little more closely and noticing they're imaginary. (i.e. there isn't an actual boundary between the wrist and the hand) To say they are limited would simply be to acknowledge the boundaries we imagined, which is equally meaningless. Feelings are also made of imagined boundaries, and therefore have no absolute actuality. I just addressed this point by point but deleted it. I think its simpler to cut to the chase and ask you the same question I asked Laughter. Which of these models approximates most closely to the truth? Each of the 3 options is contextually consistent. Experiences/appearances/perceptions are: 1) Dual, separate, finite, limited 2) Non-dual, non-separate, non-finite, non-limited 3) Absolute, infinite, unlimited |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 12:06:00 GMT -5
Not at all. The nature of appearances are non-dual, which means that there is a duality, but its an illusion...there is a separation, but its an illusion... there is a finiteness, but its an illusion....there is a limitedness, but its an illusion. Its because appearances are non-dual that we can point to an Absolute Real that is prior to it. The reason is that non-two, implicates both one (and nothing). If appearances were actually dual, there is no implication of one (and nothing). The reason being that two distinct, finite, limited 'objects' could only exist in a fragmented objective reality. Have you just recently discovered that duality is illusion? Course not, I've been arguing that for years. You don't get that duality is an illusion. If you did, then you would see experiences, appearances and perceptions as 'non-dual'. You have been arguing against this for a long time. To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are non-dual, IS to say that duality is an illusion (what I am saying) To say that experiences, appearances and perceptions are dual, IS to say that duality is actual (what you are saying) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 12:11:27 GMT -5
Causality is an appearance that is rooted in other appearances. There is a factory that makes hammers. Appearances appear to intertwine and change over time, one leading to another. At the inception of it all is the illusion of two. That 'inception' is a presence and an absence hence why it is the illusion of two. Existence, God, Life....is all non-oppositional in nature.Yes, but feeling isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 12:20:30 GMT -5
Right, she's distorted every spiritual pointer and adapted it to her personal escape plan. She denies there is an escape plan but admits it's about problem solving and says she has solved the problem. The seeker can never legitimately stand up and say 'I solved the suffering problem', because the seeker IS the problem. The personal search for freedom fails, and this opens the door to potential freedom from the seeker. The function of sincerity is to look for the truth rather than to solve the personal problem, which is based on a falsity. Figandrew has stated they have no interest in truth/falsity, which is part of the doomed escape plan. They justify this and other ideas as part of a circular argument: I'm happy and free, and therefore I don't need to divvy up experience into true/false, actual/illusion in order to be free. Fig's focus on the one ended stick is demonstrated in her enjoyment of garbage flowers and all the stories she tells about her peace/joy/ease, but because the one ended stick is a myth, we know the other end must be close by. We see the other end in her negative picture painting in which she is still seeing only what she wants to see but this time it is predominantly negative, albeit self image reinforcing. The harder she tries to bias her perception in the positive direction, the more is shows up in the negative direction because that's how Andrew's nonexistent dualistic experience works. The goal isn't actually to feel good all the time, and this is what reveals the Figandrew escape plan. The goal is to be free, which includes freedom from the idea that feeling is a problem to be solved. It's freedom from the one who need to be free.I tell ya, they've never been to no-mountain. They were just browsing thru some guidebooks and travel logs and took some ventriloquist lessons.  So all those home movies about their trip to no-mountain that they made us sit through are faked??  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 12:36:22 GMT -5
That 'inception' is a presence and an absence hence why it is the illusion of two. Existence, God, Life....is all non-oppositional in nature.Yes, but feeling isn't. If feelings are oppositional (rather than contrasting) then, feelings are finite and you HAVE split existence, Life, God into 2 parts. That's why evil is the absence of goodness, hell is the absence of heaven. If they were two finite opposites, then existence would be split into goodness and evil, heaven and hell. You can't see it, but you are fragmenting existence into parts when you posit opposites, because opposites are actually finite and actually separate. |
|
