|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:09:41 GMT -5
I wonder to what extent Figs just followed Andy down that one ended stick bunny hole, and now she can't see her way back out. It's similar to what happens to religions. If what is taught is just a distant memory, the road leads to fundamentalism and confusion. On one hand she insists that being has a positive quality that can be felt, on the other hand she can't even answer the question if she exists at all. So she can tell you how her existence feels, but she cannot tell you if she exists at all. It's loco. What spirituality can do to people is amazing.  Bottom-line it much!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:11:03 GMT -5
Viewed this way, the jihadaganza kinda' seems like a cry for help, now, doesn't it?  I think so too. Why else would she endure 'the nasty mocking' (as she calls it) since years? Why else does she delete her accounts but always comes back in the end?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:12:46 GMT -5
What is telling is that they try to convey what cannot be conveyed. hehe...every single person who attempts to talk about non-duality, or spirituality in general really, is trying to convey what cannot be conveyed. And yet, look, here we all are. YOU included.  What does that say about you? The distinction is that we do it consciously. We know that we can't convey it. What always comes through in the dialog, is that you don't. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:16:58 GMT -5
Yes: define yourself by the other. Define yourself as good, loving, carefree, accepting, unlmited, open and curious and then the other ... well ..  This role play addiction is also pointing to a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom means. The infamous dialog from last year was exactly about that. I pointed out that what she calls freedom (unlimited non-attached role play) isn't real freedom. Real freedom means having no role to play at all, an absence of role play, not a smooth non-attached role play. Which earned me the reputation of being a sterile cold fish. Yes, your point was quite obvious: the stories don't go away, but they are always after the fact. If one's experience is of actively thinking "ok, now I have to be a driver and pretend to drive the car ... now I have to be a worker and pretend to clock in" ... etc, then it's not flow. So, while A may suffer from over-thinking, F may actually suffer from over-emoting.  Yes, and although they seem determined to cling to the mutually supportive delusions, that is becoming very obvious from the MT's. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:18:55 GMT -5
Oh nooo ... when she wrote this there were no negative feeling states active. At all. No urge to score points, no sniping involved, no sarcasm, no bitterness, no cruelty. Nope. It was easy to write that. It came from a place of peace, and perhaps genuine concern for Reefs emotional state. Her entire logic is absurd. Her logic basically is that if one cannot talk about it then it doesn't exist. How more shallow can it get? No wonder she fell for the Katie trap. Katie is talking about love all the time. So she must know it. And if Reefs doesn't talk about it, then he must be lacking in that area.   Yes, exactly a$$ backward. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:21:12 GMT -5
Well, let's assume a wild chiggy-wiggy around the obvious. What do your calculations say?  Umm, lesse. Pir 2 X CW...(tan(duality not)/hyp(existence non)) bliss.....Looks like 42. You cheater! You just plagiarized fake Einstein! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:39:21 GMT -5
It's not a matter of comfort, it's a matter of integrity. The distinction between "the world" and "the false" only doesn't matter if one is knee deep in batsh!t on a tour of la-la-land, and the only commonality of those words is in the relationships between the ideas referenced. Appearences appear in the perception of an experiencer that is experiencing -- you see, those three words do not all refer to the same idea. For a dialog free of confusion, there has to be clarity with respect to the potential contextual ambiguity. Of the three words only one of them, “appearance”, is contextually unambiguous. To see this, compare each to the word “actual”, if “actual” is taken to point to what remains when the false is seen as false. Appearences are unambiguously non-actual. They can appear to be actual, if the false is taken as true. If the false is seen as false, it is said that appearances are seen to be a sort of illusion. They are mind made. They only have apparent actuality. If, otoh, the false is mistaken to be true, then an appearance is described as an object with independent actuality, which describes the world view of material realism. Perception can be used in such a way as to refer directly to actuality. U.G. and ZD both use it this way and explain it by reference to the metaphor of a camera or as what is the input to a graphics generator. Used this way, “perception” refers to “what is”, and is neither objective nor subjective. If the indeterminism of neither subjective nor objective isn’t clear to the reader, it might seem, when used this way, that perception refers to an objective actuality. It doesn’t. Perception can also be used in a purely subjective sense, and in this meaning, it is a process of the mind generating appearances. E’ most often uses the word this way, with the phrase “perception is creation”. In terms of actuality, the experience and the experiencer are never two. When ZD , Steve and Reefs write about active samahdi, that’s what they’re referring to. Given the benefit of the doubt, the terms “face-value experience” and “what is happening” refer to this meaning of the word. But the experiencer, is an appearance, and if "experience" is meant in terms of the duality of the experiencer and what is experienced, then the relation of the word “experience” to “perception” is not simple, and can be further confused by using one or the other contextual meanings of “perception”. Used this way, experience is an entanglement between actuality and appearance. This is all nonsense. ha! ha! yes! of course you won't touch it because you can't! Engaging any of it collapses your contextual confusion game.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 4:44:39 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. You're using the word "actual" as a relationship between two falsities (appearences), which is a different meaning from equating actual with seeing the false as false. At this point, pretty much anything anyone writes in reply to you is nothing but hamster food. Actually, I used the word 'Real' in contrast to 'appearances'. However, I'm not hung up on the word 'actual', we could say that the 'true' relationship between monitor and face can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. The key point here is the experiencer and experienced are not the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. No two appearances are the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. If those words don't work for you, pick your own, it really doesn't matter, as long as what we are indicating is a non-relationship. Or just man up and admit you are wrong  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 4:45:26 GMT -5
There's a lot of other nonsense been written last night that's not worth addressing, the key points related to the subject of 'appearances' are the ones I made. Arrogant much? Just got no time for your trolling is all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 4:47:38 GMT -5
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. Yup. The general structure of the dialogs starts with figandrew attempting just that: trying to reify and codify an understanding by using the ideas that embody the pointers. Then we wade in to try to untangle and separate out the false as false and to someone who hasn't read from the start, it can get nearly impossible to untangle where the source of the foolishness was. oh dear, oh dear. You are trying to separate out the false as false, but Being is not-separate from mind, the Real is not-separate from appearances, the True is not-separate from the false. They are non-relationships. Honey-bun, you are a separatist. A fundie. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 4:52:57 GMT -5
ha! ha! yes! of course you won't touch it because you can't! Engaging any of it collapses your contextual confusion game. Wrong. It was all a big strawman. What we are talking about here is the non-relationship between Being and mind, Absolute and relative, the Real and appearances, Truth and falsity (that's all the same thing expressed different ways). They are non-separate, and the reason they are non-separate, is because there is no true/real/actual separation between two appearances, two experiences, two perceptions, two expressions. What you guys are saying is that in the relative, one expression is actually/truly/really separate from another. I guess so that you can then separate out Truth from Falsity. Massive fundamentalism basically. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 4:56:55 GMT -5
wall unraveling contextual confusion There are differences between the words I offered, but there is also a commonality in that they are all not 'Real', and that's enough.  "Experience" is not "Real" .. Aces! Take that up with the face-value experiencers of "what is happening". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:00:17 GMT -5
ha! ha! yes! of course you won't touch it because you can't! Engaging any of it collapses your contextual confusion game.  ha! ha! yes! of course you won't touch it because you can't!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 13, 2014 5:08:18 GMT -5
There are differences between the words I offered, but there is also a commonality in that they are all not 'Real', and that's enough. "Experience" is not "Real" .. Aces! Take that up with the face-value experiencers of "what is happening". Experiences are also not-separate from what is prior. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 13, 2014 5:17:28 GMT -5
You're using the word "actual" as a relationship between two falsities (appearences), which is a different meaning from equating actual with seeing the false as false. At this point, pretty much anything anyone writes in reply to you is nothing but hamster food. Actually, I used the word 'Real' in contrast to 'appearances'. Not in what I replied to, no, you used the word "actual": what we are talking about is the actual relationship between the monitor and your face. ... you even bolded it. However, I'm not hung up on the word 'actual', we could say that the 'true' relationship between monitor and face can only be described as non-dual and non-separate. The key point here is the experiencer and experienced are not the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. Noone disagrees with that. No two appearances are the same, but are not 'really/truly/actually' separate. That's precisely where you mix contexts: the experiencer and experience are only appearances in that they appear in the expression of the pointer: "the experiencer and the experience are not two". As with every single dialog with you it comes down to this: the map is not the territory. If those words don't work for you, pick your own, it really doesn't matter, as long as what we are indicating is a non-relationship. Or just man up and admit you are wrong  |
|
"Experience" is not "Real" .. Aces!