|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:14:43 GMT -5
cop. out.  Bullsh!t you annoying little pill -- the dialog you're offering isn't one that I haven't had with you dozens of times in the past already. cop........out |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 12, 2014 13:21:11 GMT -5
He's also conflating experience/perception with appearances. It's just not possible to have a meaningful dialog on that point when the dialog is based on agenda. Where he wants to go with it is really obvious so his next steps with it are a foregone conclusion. experiences, appearances, perceptions are all basically the same thing i.e. they are not what is prior. What we are talking about is the subjective realm. In the subjective realm there is: 1) actual separation 2) non-separation (or 'apparent' separation if you prefer) 3) sameness Enigma has picked 1. I have picked 2. You have copped out. There are meaningful distinctions between the three, but nothing that we haven't corresponded on multiple times in the past. None of the three can be correctly characterized as either objective or subjective which is why reasoning about them is ultimately futile. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 13:24:19 GMT -5
That which is pointed to beyond mind, is also beyond feeling. Yes, if what's being pointed at is beyond mind, then it is also beyond feeling. That said, the pointing itself arises from being, as an interest to go/see beyond itself. That very interest to glimpse/garner/gnosis 'beyond mind' itself has a feeling component to it. Pointing to that which is beyond mind can only ever happen from a position of being. And, Feeling cannot be separated out from being...there is always a feeling component to experience. Feeling is inextricably interwoven into being. When there's no thing and no identification in the way, the feeling component of being IS a felt sense of peace/ease. So,yes that which is being pointed to, is an absence that is beyond mind.....but that absence makes itself known through the feeling component of being. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:36:48 GMT -5
experiences, appearances, perceptions are all basically the same thing i.e. they are not what is prior. What we are talking about is the subjective realm. In the subjective realm there is: 1) actual separation 2) non-separation (or 'apparent' separation if you prefer) 3) sameness Enigma has picked 1. I have picked 2. You have copped out. There are meaningful distinctions between the three, but nothing that we haven't corresponded on multiple times in the past. None of the three can be correctly characterized as either objective or subjective which is why reasoning about them is ultimately futile. If you are not comfortable characterizing them as subjective (or objective), then we could characterize them all as 'what is not Real' or 'form' or 'the false', or 'the world'. It really doesn't matter what label we use, what is common between them is more important that their differences here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 13:43:40 GMT -5
That which is pointed to beyond mind, is also beyond feeling. Yes, if what's being pointed at is beyond mind, then it is also beyond feeling. That said, the pointing itself arises from being, as an interest to go/see beyond itself. That very interest to glimpse/garner/gnosis 'beyond mind' itself has a feeling component to it. Pointing to that which is beyond mind can only ever happen from a position of being. And, Feeling cannot be separated out from being...there is always a feeling component to experience. Feeling is inextricably interwoven into being. When there's no thing and no one in the way, the feeling component of being IS a felt sense of peace/ease. So,yes that which is being pointed to, is an absence that is beyond mind.....but that absence makes itself known through the feeling component of being. Yes. If Enigma is pointing beyond mind to emptiness or the void, then he is correct that there is no feeling in emptiness/void. However, when Tolle, Spira, Mooji, Adya, Ramana....speak of Happiness, Peace, Joy, Bliss, they are still pointing beyond mind, but are not pointing to emptiness. They are pointing to what is fundamental to Consciousness or Being. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 13:46:06 GMT -5
Could we call that a winless win for her?  Life is a ringless ring fer figs and she only feels the punches she wants to feel, even if they are herself punching herself in the face! Really, it's just a more sophisticated version of the positive thinking escape plan. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 13:54:15 GMT -5
Why, in her dreams, of course she can. Non-duality doesn't care about mind content, be it dream or waking state. That's why this perpetugasm stuff is off topic. No. The quality of experience is not off topic. & I seem to distinctly recall E for one, saying that the whole importance of seeing 'not-two' was to end suffering. The end of suffering is surely 'betterment of experience', isn't it? The quibble here is about the depth of impact that the absence behind the end of suffering, has. I'm saying, if the absence includes all fixed identification, that impact will not merely mean the end of finding fight with (or placing on overlay of judgment upon) feelings, (which is how suffering is often described here), but it will also mean the end of finding fight with circumstances. When acceptance applies to circumstances, feelings below well-being, have nothing to arise from. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 14:00:11 GMT -5
The one that most closely approximates the truth is #1. Your options don't cut to the chase. They perpetuate the same misunderstandings. You'll conclude that I'm saying appearances are separate, and round we'll go. What I tried to do was expand the discussion beyond those boundaries by talking about how appearances form. They don't cut to the chase because they are just approximations. They are just models. Nevertheless, choosing one of the options does reveal a lot about your position. I actually appreciate that you put yourself on the line and made a choice, but you are correct that you are saying that appearances are separate, not even 'apparently' separate. I of course go with number 2, that appearances are non-separate or apparently separate. The problem with saying appearances are only apparently separate is that it implies appearances are actualities that are connected together. Appearances are just apparent, which is why they're called appearances. What you've been trying to do is talk about appearances as non-separate in a non-dual context, so you've been mixing contexts. Understanding how appearances form can stop the confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 14:00:47 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes much more cents, fer sure. Given the faulty memory issues in the wigbot, it doesn't surprise me that she'd slander you and Reefs with the accusation of an invitationless invitation from one of you. But she knew that we would be here on ST because she helped me contact Enigma and I think Enigma even posted a link to ST on pavlina before it was finally shut down. But I can't remember inviting her personally and I'm pretty sure Enigma didn't do that either. That was part of a link creation project, prior to my book release. My link was posted for me, on literally hundreds of content related forums and blogs for marketing purposes. Does "check it out if you feel like it" qualify as invite?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 14:03:36 GMT -5
That's what you get for thinking about it so much. Duality refers to the illusion of twoness. It doesn't mean that something within that illusion is nondual. Duality doesn't refer to the illusion of twoness, it IS twoness you big buffoon. That's what I'm saying, DWADface. Nonduality refers to that which is prior to, and therefore more fundamental than, the illusion of twoness. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 12, 2014 14:10:04 GMT -5
Unless is hasn't! right, there never was a war, it was all agenda and propaganda; double think, revisionism and thought crimes. but also, I was curious if Silver had ever read a book (any book) from cover to cover.  Now, why would you wonder that?  I dunno about you, but when I'm interested in a subject, I scour the library and sit down and sort out the books that are most promising, grab a few, take 'em home, and sort some more. Why read a whole book if selected parts don't click with a person? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 14:11:43 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. Interestingly enough, I've actually found that living mostly in the present moment, (which is the opposite of busy/overthinking mind) has the effect of life seeming more 'dream-like.' Life becomes rife with synchronicity.....there's a lightness to everything, even form seems to be less 'dense'...more fluid...circumstances morph in ways that at one point in my life would have been deemed 'freaky.' There's this sense that quite literally, anything could happen...and underscoring it all, a deep, warm sense of well-being. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 14:20:51 GMT -5
I was wondering about that too. Why did they sign up on a non-duality forum? Makes no sense. Except if they are looking for relaxing and enjoyable conflict. If they'd prefer smooth conversations, then they'd be on a new age forum. Hmmm.....is this forum specifically only for those interested in non-duality? & fwiw, I do have an interest in non-duality....Thing is, my understandings of "not two" do not fully dove-tail with the understandings of all other here. You seem to be very firm on the idea of consensus. Again, as we've seen on other forums, when everyone agrees, conversations have a way of drying up pretty quickly. I've noticed, You yourself don't seem to have much interest in forum participation unless there are some divergent opinions present. Have a look at your history. So, be careful what you wish for......if you enjoy forum participation, you might be cutting off your own nose to spite your face when you suggest that those with divergent opinions about non-duality should take a hike. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 14:23:43 GMT -5
She knew about this forum in 2010 already. She promoted her website in the marketing section. Long before we even met in 2011: But she knew that we would be here on ST because she helped me contact Enigma and I think Enigma even posted a link to ST on pavlina before it was finally shut down. But I can't remember inviting her personally and I'm pretty sure Enigma didn't do that either. You fool! I had her! She was toast! I was all ready ta' haul her ass into the peeps court! I worked hard on setting that trap! (** shakes head sadly **)hehehe....yes, I was waiting for it...... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 14:24:24 GMT -5
They don't cut to the chase because they are just approximations. They are just models. Nevertheless, choosing one of the options does reveal a lot about your position. I actually appreciate that you put yourself on the line and made a choice, but you are correct that you are saying that appearances are separate, not even 'apparently' separate. I of course go with number 2, that appearances are non-separate or apparently separate. The problem with saying appearances are only apparently separate is that it implies appearances are actualities that are connected together. Appearances are just apparent, which is why they're called appearances. What you've been trying to do is talk about appearances as non-separate in a non-dual context, so you've been mixing contexts. Understanding how appearances form can stop the confusion. Appearances are only apparent and are only apparently separate (my position, choice 2) Currently, you are saying that appearances are only apparent and are actually separate (your position, choice 1)  |
|
