|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 17:24:01 GMT -5
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. To say that there is a separation between the monitor and your face is fine. However, what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. The 'actual' relationship can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. Just as the actual relationship between experiencer and experienced can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:31:01 GMT -5
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. Adya, one of the teachers you just mentioned, wrote a book called "Emptiness Speaks". Regardless, I'm tired of arguing what words mean.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:35:44 GMT -5
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! You mean appearances are actually connected together, or one, or what? What does it mean to say appearances aren't separate? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:38:33 GMT -5
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. Do you mean to say what is prior is undivided and absolute? Do you mean to say that what appears is the illusion of twoness!?  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 17:44:10 GMT -5
All I can figure is that you still don't understand context. To say that there is a separation between the monitor and your face is fine. However, what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. The 'actual' relationship can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. Just as the actual relationship between experiencer and experienced can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. As soon as you start talking about relationship between parts, you're waist deep in duality. (I hear the more you struggle, the further down you sink.) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 18:03:37 GMT -5
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. Adya, one of the teachers you just mentioned, wrote a book called "Emptiness Speaks". Regardless, I'm tired of arguing what words mean. yes, I have no problem with 'emptiness'. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 18:10:41 GMT -5
yes it should be obvious that appearances are apparent and therefore only apparently separate! You mean appearances are actually connected together, or one, or what? What does it mean to say appearances aren't separate? It definitely doesn't mean that appearances are actually connected together, it also doesn't mean that appearances are one. To say that appearances are only apparently separate (or non-separate) means that there is no 'actual' divide between one appearance and another. There just 'appears' to be an actual divide. They just 'appear' to be finite and limited. That also doesn't mean that appearances are undivided, unlimited and infinite. There's no good way of expressing this linguistically because the concepts will always give slightly the wrong impression. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 18:11:07 GMT -5
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. Do you mean to say what is prior is undivided and absolute? Do you mean to say that what appears is the illusion of twoness!? hehe yes! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 12, 2014 18:15:20 GMT -5
To say that there is a separation between the monitor and your face is fine. However, what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. The 'actual' relationship can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. Just as the actual relationship between experiencer and experienced can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. As soon as you start talking about relationship between parts, you're waist deep in duality. (I hear the more you struggle, the further down you sink.) definitely not talking about parts. If you agree that there is an experiencer and experienced, or perceived and perceived...then we are talking about a 'relationship', but the only adequate way to describe this relationship is to say non-separate or non-two. The experiencer/perceiver is not the SAME as what is experienced/perceived, but equally, the perceiver/experiencer are not actually separate from what is experienced/perceived. The rational thinking mind cannot grasp this, which is why we can only point to the true nature of the 'relationship' with words like non-separate and non-two. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Oct 12, 2014 18:56:34 GMT -5
As soon as you start talking about relationship between parts, you're waist deep in duality. (I hear the more you struggle, the further down you sink.) definitely not talking about parts. If you agree that there is an experiencer and experienced, or perceived and perceived...then we are talking about a 'relationship', but the only adequate way to describe this relationship is to say non-separate or non-two. The experiencer/perceiver is not the SAME as what is experienced/perceived, but equally, the perceiver/experiencer are not actually separate from what is experienced/perceived. The rational thinking mind cannot grasp this, which is why we can only point to the true nature of the 'relationship' with words like non-separate and non-two. Too much mental structure needed to converse in the manner you and others believe point to whatever it is you think is being pointed to.. it's like a word contest, trying to out think/say the other.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:03:28 GMT -5
As Adya says: "Imagine, no problem solved! No answers to your questions!" figandrew probably think that the constant reference to the fact that they don't have experiential reference for these dialogs is just arrogant dismissal, and before I started participating in these discussions, and was just reading them, I found it both odd and unnecessary when either side resorted to that. But when you're actually in these discussions though, that's really what it comes down do, and they never fail to prove up this same point repetitively. It's not possible to directly state the truth but it's really obvious when a falsity is mistaken for it.  What always comes through in what they write is a sort of incredulous "what, is that all there is?" What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. TPTPAU is beyond understanding and still they try to understand it and even establish a causal relationship to positive mind states. By doing so, they are trying to turn what is false into something real. Which shows once again that they don't know what is real and what is false. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:10:42 GMT -5
Yes, 850+ posts in just a month, and nonstop fighting. Somethin biggie seems to bee goin' on over there in the figglepatch these days ... As A-H say, it's like a two-headed monster and each head his trying to go into a different direction.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 12, 2014 21:13:52 GMT -5
You mean appearances are actually connected together, or one, or what? What does it mean to say appearances aren't separate? It definitely doesn't mean that appearances are actually connected together, it also doesn't mean that appearances are one. To say that appearances are only apparently separate (or non-separate) means that there is no 'actual' divide between one appearance and another. There just 'appears' to be an actual divide. They just 'appear' to be finite and limited. That also doesn't mean that appearances are undivided, unlimited and infinite. There's no good way of expressing this linguistically because the concepts will always give slightly the wrong impression.Apparently. What would you approve of as an "actual divide"? Obviously, a physical divider won't do, and neither will a conceptual one. Isn't it true that definitive separation is just an idea, like all other ideas, no more or less 'actual' than the appearances themselves? You imagine an appearance, then look for something beyond your imagination to tell you it's 'actually' separate from something. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 12, 2014 21:14:17 GMT -5
She'll see a pack of angel cards. figglekid (on the phone): "uhm, mom, I got in an accident"  figgles (on scene) "oh! look at the pretty flower!" Honestly, who wouldn't love such a parent? You've just crashed her car and the only comment from her is about flowers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2014 21:14:30 GMT -5
definitely not talking about parts. If you agree that there is an experiencer and experienced, or perceived and perceived...then we are talking about a 'relationship', but the only adequate way to describe this relationship is to say non-separate or non-two. The experiencer/perceiver is not the SAME as what is experienced/perceived, but equally, the perceiver/experiencer are not actually separate from what is experienced/perceived. The rational thinking mind cannot grasp this, which is why we can only point to the true nature of the 'relationship' with words like non-separate and non-two. Too much mental structure needed to converse in the manner you and others believe point to whatever it is you think is being pointed to.. it's like a word contest, trying to out think/say the other.. I call that destroying the beauty of silence... ROMANCING  |
|
