|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 14:26:33 GMT -5
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. You didn't say that, you said 'duality refers to the illusion of twoness'. It doesn't. Non-duality refers to the illusion of twoness. What is 'prior to' is absolute and is prior to the illusion of twoness that appears. Please read that again. What is 'prior to' is absolute, and is prior to the illusion of twoness that appears. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Oct 12, 2014 14:34:49 GMT -5
There you go. At around that time she still thought 'impersonal' would mean 'no thoughts'. So I guess what she is referring to as her 'no-mountain' time was an experience of no thought. How else could she conclude that experience is always personal? No..I've rarely gone on about 'no thought.' What I've said is that it could be said that experience in it's totality becomes intimately personal, but that impersonal works too. What I'm getting at there, is the presence of a 'seamless quality'...where there's no divide between experience/experiencer.....the line between "I am" and "being" falls away. When the delineation between impersonal/personal falls away, there is just 'this' and it's one in the same to say, it's all intimate, or it's all impersonal....as, it's all ONE happening. Person, perception, perceived...where No one facet is separated out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 15:25:46 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. 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. I'm guessing what I said about appearances didn't help him with his agenda, so he dragged the discussion back to the DAWDcycle and called it 'cutting to the chase'. I'm also guessing that he runs these new distinctions he comes up with through his head so many times they start to sound to him like they're objectively valid. If he lets go of any of those DWADstinctions his final conclusion changes, and the goal is to not let that happen. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 15:31:49 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. In the context of subjective appearances, separation is true. Your monitor is separate from your face. If you don't believe me, slap your monitor and see how it feels. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 15:32:45 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. I'm guessing what I said about appearances didn't help him with his agenda, so he dragged the discussion back to the DAWDcycle and called it 'cutting to the chase'. I'm also guessing that he runs these new distinctions he comes up with through his head so many times they start to sound to him like they're objectively valid. If he lets go of any of those DWADstinctions his final conclusion changes, and the goal is to not let that happen. So many words there, so little said. Currently, you are saying that appearances are only apparent (which is fine) but are actually separate (d'oh!) Do you have anything to say? I will remind you that anything you say can and will be used against you.... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 15:35:10 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. In the context of subjective appearances, separation is true. Your monitor is separate from your face. If you don't believe me, slap your monitor and see how it feels. Congratulations, you have just argued for actual separation. The monitor and my face are 'non-separate'. This means that there IS a separation, but the separation is 'apparent' or 'illusionary'. However, again, I do actually appreciate that you are stating a clear position. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 15:40:10 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. We've had this discussion, and nothing you've said here will change the outcome of this one. You're simply repeating that there is a feeling component to being. I'm saying there is not. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 15:45:43 GMT -5
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. They're pointing to something that is beyond understanding, and you're trying to understand it. The pointer to emptiness and the pointer to being are pointing to the same. To say one has no feeling and the other does is confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 15:52:55 GMT -5
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. They're pointing to something that is beyond understanding, and you're trying to understand it. The pointer to emptiness and the pointer to being are pointing to the same. To say one has no feeling and the other does is confusion. No, I agree that the fundamental Happiness, Peace and Joy of Consciousness that is part of felt experience does indeed pass understanding hehehe A pointer to 'the void/emptiness' is not usually the same pointer to 'Being'. Being is known/felt. The void is an absence. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 16:55:51 GMT -5
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. Currently, you are saying that appearances are only apparent and are actually separate (your position, choice 1)  That's only true from a context larger than the subjective context. It's actually in the same context in which I talked about how appearances form. So again, there's context confusion. (What we're talking about is basic stuff about which there should be no disagreement.) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:03:20 GMT -5
That's what I'm saying, DWADface. Nonduality refers to that which is prior to, and therefore more fundamental than, the illusion of twoness. You didn't say that, you said 'duality refers to the illusion of twoness'. It doesn't. Non-duality refers to the illusion of twoness. But you said duality IS the illusion of twoness. So, non-duality refers to duality??  You want me to read it again? Can you make a guess as to how many times and for how many years I've been saying that? Could you say that one more time slowly, please?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:07:58 GMT -5
I'm guessing what I said about appearances didn't help him with his agenda, so he dragged the discussion back to the DAWDcycle and called it 'cutting to the chase'. I'm also guessing that he runs these new distinctions he comes up with through his head so many times they start to sound to him like they're objectively valid. If he lets go of any of those DWADstinctions his final conclusion changes, and the goal is to not let that happen. So many words there, so little said. Currently, you are saying that appearances are only apparent (which is fine) but are actually separate (d'oh!) Do you have anything to say? I will remind you that anything you say can and will be used against you.... I'm certainlessly certain that everything I don't say will be used against me too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:09:33 GMT -5
In the context of subjective appearances, separation is true. Your monitor is separate from your face. If you don't believe me, slap your monitor and see how it feels. Congratulations, you have just argued for actual separation. The monitor and my face are 'non-separate'. This means that there IS a separation, but the separation is 'apparent' or 'illusionary'. However, again, I do actually appreciate that you are stating a clear position. All I can figure is that you still don't understand context. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 17:14:01 GMT -5
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) That's only true from a context larger than the subjective context. It's actually in the same context in which I talked about how appearances form. So again, there's context confusion. (What we're talking about is basic stuff about which there should be no disagreement.) yes it should be obvious that appearances are apparent and therefore only apparently separate! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 17:21:05 GMT -5
You didn't say that, you said 'duality refers to the illusion of twoness'. It doesn't. Non-duality refers to the illusion of twoness. But you said duality IS the illusion of twoness. So, non-duality refers to duality?? You want me to read it again? Can you make a guess as to how many times and for how many years I've been saying that? Could you say that one more time slowly, please? That bit is important. I'll say it again: What is prior is undivided, absolute, whole. What appears is not actually twoness, its the illusion of twoness i.e. non-two. |
|
